Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Tourism

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the British tourism industry. This is not the first time that the industry has been debated in this Parliament, but there has not been a debate on the issue in Government time. It has fallen to the Opposition and to Back Benchers to seek to bring the importance of the industry and its circumstances to the attention of the House.
The debate is timely and necessary, not least because of the publication in February of the Government's document "Tomorrow's Tourism", which sets out the Government's view of the strategy for tourism. Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced the conversion of the English tourist board into the English Tourism Council, so it is entirely right that we should debate tourism at this time.
We should keep the interests of the tourism industry at the forefront of our deliberations because of the industry's importance. The industry generates expenditure of £53 billion a year, and accounts for up to 5 per cent. of our gross domestic product. It is our largest invisible export, and provides employment for 1.75 million people. It has been responsible for one in five of the new jobs created in this country over the past decade. The industry is managed by some 200,000 businesses around the country, the great majority of which are small businesses. In my constituency—as in all others—tourism bulks large as a provider of employment and expenditure, and as a generator of enterprise.
In that context, I should like to reflect on the fact that restaurants, bars and shops, as part of the hospitality and leisure sector, are at the heart of many high streets and city centres, including the city centre of Cambridge, part of which I have the honour to represent. In London, our thoughts must go to those who run the restaurants, bars and shops of Soho, who were providing hospitality and leisure last Friday when the area was bombed. Yesterday, they set about "business as usual". Our thoughts and congratulations should go to them for the way in which they have responded to those challenging circumstances.
Not all is well in the tourism industry. The latest statistics on overseas travel and tourism show that, in the year to February 1999—as compared with the year to February 1998—the deficit on the travel account of our balance of payments grew from £5 billion to £7 billion.
In Cambridge, an effective strategy was put in place in 1996. It was set up on the basis of the then figure of 3.6 million visitors to Cambridge, and on the expectation that, by 2001, the city would be dealing with 4.2 million visitors. In 1998, the numbers fell to 3.2 million visitors. What was essentially a strategy devised around the dispersal and management of a growth in visitor numbers is now being adapted to one that emphasises the enhancement of the visitor experience and the opportunities to visit Cambridge.
The strategy also makes sure that visitors have ample opportunity to take in attractions outside Cambridge, of which the imperial war museum at Duxford, with the American air museum—opened recently with lottery support and following considerable fundraising in my constituency—is an example.
In the past few days, the English tourist board has published its summary statistics on visits to tourist attractions, which show an overall drop of 2 per cent. in such visits. We are not simply managing long-term growth, and it is clear that we are working with an industry that is not maintaining its share of world markets, and is in continuing need of a strategy.
The Government's document "Tomorrow's Tourism" is an aspirational document, as is often the case. However, as is equally often the case with Government documents, the aspirations look fine, but the actions set out are more of a work in progress than an attempt to match up to the strategy. I share the concern of the industry—expressed not least by the British Incoming Tour Operators Association—that it is necessary to determine strategy first, and then to move to structure. However, the Government seem to be changing the structure and letting the strategy flow from it. That is the wrong way round. I would rather that we concentrated on purposes than processes in the first instance.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend will recall that Mr. Rodgers of the Labour party, who later became Lord Rodgers of the Social Democratic party, signed 35 of my amendments to set up the English tourist board, which was not in the original Bill that became the Development of Tourism Act 1969. The idea was to try to ensure that England was helped equally with Scotland and Wales, which had never previously been the case, and has never been the case since. I hope that my hon. Friend will urge the Government to ensure that there is equality.

Mr. Lansley: My right hon. Friend brings a great wealth of experience to the subject, and he is absolutely right. The grant in aid to the various tourist bodies in England is about 20p per head, whereas it is £3.76 in Scotland and £4.99 in Wales.
The British Incoming Tour Operators Association said that it is clear that Ministers in Scotland and Wales, and indeed Northern Ireland, have understood that investment in the tourism industry can have high rates of return, whereas in England the message has not been understood. Joined-up government, as the buzz phrase has it, does not seem to work in the tourism industry.

Mr. John Butterfill: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the situation is worse in real terms than in per capita terms, because the English tourist board last year received £9.9 million, whereas the Scottish


tourist board received £19.3 million? There is double the spending in Scotland in absolute, let alone per capita, terms.

Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. Comparisons are odious, and I am not suggesting that the Scottish tourist board is acting in anything but an effective manner, but that effectiveness shows how much of the potential for action in England remains unrealised.
I am worried that there may be even further division within England of the way in which marketing is carried out. London is to have a mayor and its own direct marketing budget. Where does that leave other parts of England, such as South Cambridgeshire, which are considerable visitor attractions but receive little support?

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the deeply frustrating question of the differential funding of tourist boards, the steps that the Government have taken have further disintegrated the joint approach to promoting Britain around the world? Scotland and Wales, being so much more generously funded than England, inevitably have much more affluent teams of people selling their part of the United Kingdom. There is a disintegration into different tribes promoting their own separate areas.

Mr. Lansley: If the Government intend that there should be a strategy, what more obvious example of joined-up thinking—to use their parlance—could there be than for overseas marketing to be conducted in a co-ordinated way on behalf of all the countries of the United Kingdom? There is some scope for the Scottish and Welsh boards to undertake their overseas marketing through the British Tourist Authority, but that is not true across the board.
I fear that there will be further fracturing, with London undertaking its own promotion. I applaud the idea of the mayor taking an activist stance in promoting London, because our tourist industry as a whole depends more on the role of London as a gateway than on any other single factor, but that should not be done in isolation from the promotion of other destinations—Scotland is a prime example—to which visitors can be drawn.
We need a strategy rather than simply work in progress. "Tomorrow's Tourism" contains references to transport, but they amount to no more than an assertion that tourism must be part of the integrated transport policy announced in the transport White Paper. There is a very close relationship between the way in which transport is managed locally and the volume of visitors to a location such as Cambridge, for example.
In 2000, local authorities will produce local transport plans for the first time. It should be incumbent on those authorities to prepare the plans in co-operation with other local authorities, the private sector and the tourist industry, so that we can see that they are consistent with local visitor management plans. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should take explicit account of the impact on the local economy when considering transport policies and programmes bids.
Positive planning is important. Because it is mostly small businesses, rather than the big battalions, that are involved, tourism is often at the behest of planning rather

than being able to influence it directly. We must view tourism as a positive part of the planning process, not least because, as is evident in Cambridge and many other places, bringing in visitors can generate money that can regenerate an area if it is spent well.
Our heritage, with all our historic buildings, is the principal reason that visitors come to this country. We can use tourism as a positive agency for conserving our heritage. It brings in a lot of money, and we can use the tourist dollar in the planning process—through the preparation of conservation plans for historic assets, for example—to achieve broader environmental and planning objectives.
Planning policy guidance 21 is several years old. When, in the plethora of PPG reviews, do the Government intend to review it, in the light of, for example, the discussion on sustainable tourism? Tourism can be better managed so that it does not degrade the environment and, just as historic assets can be improved by tourism resources, it can make a positive impact on sustaining our environment.
Historic buildings brought back into use for tourism purposes can be better preserved as well as enhancing the visitor experience. For example, in the cities of New England there are buildings from the industrial revolution which have been preserved simply because they are being used as a visitor attraction.
In the range of joined-up government, what thought have the Government given to taxation in this context? I know that the British Tourist Authority has considered the impact of VAT on the competitive position of the United Kingdom economy in comparison with other European economies. Will the Minister respond to that? What scope is there, for example, for considering zero rating for the repair and adaptive reuse of historic buildings, which, as I explained in respect of the promotion of environmental sustainability, would certainly be a considerable incentive for the undertaking such work?
As for joined-up government, the principal failing at the moment—I am afraid that "Tomorrow's Tourism" neglects this altogether—is the impact of Government regulation on the industry. From talking to representatives of many businesses, I have found that most staff in my area are already paid more than £3.60 an hour. That is not entirely true across the country. The wages of many employees in restaurants, bars and shops, for example, have been raised to the minimum level.
Bearing in mind the experience of my area, the Government might take the view that the minimum wage and the working time directive do not cause businesses problems because they do not impose a direct cost on them. However, the compliance costs falling on businesses are substantial. For example, the working time directive is having a considerable impact on the way in which businesses can manage shift patterns for employees such as night porters in hotels. In a very flexible industry of many small businesses that do not benefit from a large administrative infrastructure, and in which staff come and go reasonably frequently, the minimum wage and the working time directive impose a burden of compliance that is out of all proportion to the benefits either to the employee or—certainly—the business.
One hotelier to whom I have spoken—he knows that it is true for many of his colleagues—has had to employ one person virtually full-time to manage the requirements of


the minimum wage and the working time directive, given the presumption that an employer is not paying the minimum wage unless he can prove the contrary.
One obvious further example of the need for co-ordination is in accommodation grading. One of the things trumpeted in "Tomorrow's Tourism" is that there is to be a new unified accommodation grading system, but it will harmonised, not unified. We will still be dealing with three organisations—the English tourist board, the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club will be working together—and there will still be different systems in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Sir Peter Emery: It is a nonsense.

Mr. Lansley: As my right hon. Friend rightly says, it is a nonsense, especially because people do not have to visit the United Kingdom. We must encourage them to come here, and make it easier and pleasurable for them to do so. If they find that the accommodation is not what they expected or they cannot anticipate what it will be like, they will not be attracted to this country. That is a further example of why we need to make things connect.
I was very disappointed by the response in "Tomorrow's Tourism" on training. From the very beginning, the document says that people are the key to how we can provide quality in the service industry. Although that is true, the document's exploration of training is weak. It is perfectly clear that, for the industry to be able to make its impact on, for example, training and enterprise councils and local training activity, there ought to be a national tourism training organisation. That is the only way in which sectors can have a strong voice and make the appropriate impact on local training decisions.
As a great devotee of and former incumbent of the British Chambers of Commerce, I should say that "Tomorrow's Tourism" pays far too little attention to the strategic desire for local partnerships to promote tourism activities. In America, for example, chambers of commerce and municipalities work very closely together on managing tourism activity.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to partnership; I was waiting for that word to come up. To me and to the people who work in tourism and the hospitality industry in Scarborough and Whitby, partnership is the key word. In "Tomorrow's Tourism", the hon. Gentleman will find a clear example of effective partnership in my part of the world, which is developing hospitality in particular. We are looking at matters such as training, too. I urge him to look very carefully at our example. Does he agree that the industry will develop and be far better in the future as a result of such partnership?

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I saw the reference to Scarborough and Whitby. There are several very good examples of local partnership in the document, as there often are in tourism. The partnership between the Cambridge tourism group and Cambridge city council is another good example. That reinforces my point.
If one works towards a strategy that is based on good practice, one often finds that, valuable though the work of, for example, the East Anglian regional tourist board

may be, the focus of action must be complementary to the visitor's view of the area. The Cambridge sub-region and Cambridge might therefore connect with Huntingdon, Cromwell and Constable country and the imperial war museum in my area. By and large, visitors do not visit East Anglia as a whole. Although seaside resorts such as Yarmouth are important, their marketing must be different from that for Cambridge.

Mr. Quinn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman up to a point. The people in the industry whom I represent have struggled for many years under Governments of both parties, and have concluded that establishing partnerships with local authorities and others in the area is the way to ensure that tourism thrives. Where did the industry in my part of the world go wrong over the past 18 years under the hon. Gentleman's Government? People in my area did not see an approach such as that suggested in "Tomorrow's Tourism". We did not receive any national help or hear of any national strategy, as he seems to be saying we did.

Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to revisit the past; I am talking about a strategy for the future. It is important that we focus on the future. It seems perfectly clear that if we built a strategy on examples of good practice and first principles, we would be putting more effort and power into the ability to create local partnerships, so that visitors are managed, and businesses—often small ones—can feel that they have an influence. A national body should provide a strategy and, through the BTA, marketing in England in order to attract visitors to local areas.
The Government have gone in the wrong direction. They are trying to shift the national role to regional tourist boards—the relationship between the ETB and the consumer and marketing is to disappear completely, for example—but such boards should be responsive to local action and be drawing their role from local communities and partnerships. The role should not be set from the top down.
The Government are obsessed with regionalism, but pursuing it for tourism is not what the industry is looking for—it is looking for effective overseas marketing co-ordinated by the BTA, for national champions to market and promote harmonised national products, and for power and resources to get behind local partnerships so that they can provide the visitor experience, visitor management plans and destination management systems which are able to work successfully at a local level.
It is right that the Government should publish a strategy document, but it is a pity that they have not sought to expose it to debate in the House. I therefore hope that this debate serves some purpose. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will propose further ideas on how to create a strategy where, at the moment, there is none.

10 am

Mr. John Butterfill: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) introducing this debate on a matter that, as he rightly says, is of considerable national importance, given that the tourism industry contributes nearly 5 per cent. to our gross domestic product. Indeed, if one also takes into account the leisure industry, the contribution is probably considerably greater.


I shall make one or two brief comments, the first of which has to do with the principle of joined-up Government. I very much supported the idea that responsibility for tourism should be moved from the Department of Employment, as it was at the time—it is now under the control of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has pointed out, a great many of the visitors to this country come for our cultural heritage, historic buildings and royal palaces, and to experience many of our cultural activities.
That leaves me rather puzzled at the arrangement of responsibilities within the Department. For example, the Minister for the Arts is responsible for arts, crafts, music and the Government's art collection; for museums, galleries and libraries; for the built heritage, the royal estate and architecture and design; and also for the Department's interests in information technology, training and education. Training and education also play a big part in the tourism industry, but, as all those responsibilities tie in closely with that industry, one would expect that Minister's role to include tourism.
I mean no criticism of the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, but her responsibilities, in addition to tourism, include broadcasting, film and the press, and the creative industries. She supports the Secretary of State on the millennium project and she is responsible for international, European, regional and local authority policy issues. However, those issues do not tie in very closely with tourism. Given that tourism, appropriately, is allied with her Department, why is it that that alliance is not reflected in the allocation of ministerial responsibilities?
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire referred to the importance of tourism to the nation, but tourism's local importance varies greatly between areas. More than one third of the local economy in my constituency is derived from tourism. If one adds in the associated leisure activities, the figure could be around 50 per cent. Those proportions apply equally to many other towns and cities in the United Kingdom, where tourism is the lifeblood of the local economy, and not just an ancillary industry.
Therefore, it is important that the industry be encouraged in a way that is dynamic and creative. I am afraid that not many examples of dynamism and creativity are evident at present. My hon. Friend mentioned the funding given to the English tourist board, but British Tourist Authority funding is also vital when it comes to attracting visitors, and it has been cut under this Government. That is extraordinary, given that, for every pound that it spends, the BTA returns about £27 to the Exchequer. Britain is the fifth largest recipient of overseas visitors in the world, but the numbers coming here are well below those visiting Spain, France and Italy. Given our heritage—and how important that is for international tourism—that is not very satisfactory.

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I apologise for intervening on what I recognise is Back-Bench time, but I must correct the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State recently announced an additional £5 million for the British Tourist Authority over the next three years?

Mr. Butterfill: I am aware of that, but Library figures show that the amount available to the BTA went down last year, and that the increase, which is spread over three years, will do little more than keep up with inflation—so there will probably still be a real-terms cut in the amount being spent. The Government's approach is timorous where it needs to be much more dynamic. Last year's cut in the money for the BTA caused much anxiety across the industry, not least in the BTA itself.
The disparity between England on the one hand, and Scotland and Wales on the other was mentioned earlier. The ETB receives £9.9 million, but its counterpart in Scotland gets twice that, and that in Wales receives nearly £15 million. It is extraordinary that so small a country as Wales should be spending so much more on tourism than England.
I want now to deal with the question of value added tax. The Government have said that they are keen to harmonise VAT rates across the European Union, but VAT rates for hotels in this country are the second highest in Europe, which puts our hotels at a substantial disadvantage. In addition, air passenger duty means that visitors to the United Kingdom from outside the EU pay £20 to enter the country, while visitors from the EU pay £10. The Government doubled the air passenger duty last year: surely that is the wrong signal to give to visitors.

Mr. Quinn: What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of the proposed reduction in value added tax for tourism and hospitality? Does he support that proposal? I do, as I believe that it will free up resources for reinvestment at the grass roots of our tourism industry.

Mr. Butterfill: As I have made clear, the present disparity between our VAT rates and those of other countries is not sustainable in the long term. In a moment, I shall describe the other ways in which we ought to invest in the industry, especially at a local level.
The question of raising standards has been discussed already, as has the extraordinary nature of the so-called semi-official classification. That helps neither overseas visitors nor domestic tourists. We need to work to some internationally agreed standard, so that people travelling here from around the world will have some idea of what they will encounter.
An even more difficult problem is posed by the cowboys in the industry—the small unregistered establishments that I believe ought to be registered. Some of them get away with murder: they do not pay their proper contribution in taxes, they offer substandard accommodation, and they gain all sorts of other advantages. For example, landlords of holiday flats in my constituency came to me recently to query the requirement—imposed on them because they are registered—that water meters be installed in the flats. In contrast, the cowboys in that industry, who are not registered, do not have to install water meters. The landlords to whom I spoke therefore have to bear an additional cost as a result of being registered. I urge the Government to clamp down, through local authorities, on those who often give the industry a bad reputation.


Other legislation has also had an impact. For example, there is no doubt that the minimum wage is causing job losses in my constituency. An hotelier with three establishments in Bournemouth told me that the minimum wage will cause about seven full-time-equivalent jobs in his business to be lost. That is a great worry for him, as for many others in the same line of business.
Even more difficult is the working time directive. Very often it concentrates merely on the 48-hour maximum, but the real problem lies in the rigid shift patterns and break requirements that the directive imposes. All that sits uneasily with an industry that often operates on a 24-hour basis and must provide service to people who stay in hotels or visit clubs and restaurants. The industry works huge hours, and its shift patterns have been severely disrupted by the working time directive.
Bournemouth is one of the most successful seaside towns, and rightly so. Successive local authorities have invested in the town's future, building premises such as the Bournemouth International Centre, which can encourage different types of visitors from conference tourism. All local authorities must invest in the future if they want to survive and succeed. The country is littered with resorts that have not invested and have declined as a result.
At present, there is no real incentive for authorities to invest. There is no Government encouragement and there is no benefit. Authorities that do invest often face a disbenefit because the national non-domestic rate is clawed back in its entirety by the Government. Authorities end up paying for their investment, getting little or nothing back in return.
The Government might consider a mechanism under which local authorities could be rewarded for investment by being allowed to keep part of their national non-domestic rate, hypothecated for tourism. I appreciate that that idea falls outside the Minister's direct departmental responsibilities, but she may wish to consider it and to make representations to the appropriate Department.
The Government are obsessed with regionalism, but the existing regions unfortunately fail to reflect the true economic boundaries within which we operate. Bournemouth and Dorset are in the south-west region. We were moved there by a previous Conservative Government in an appalling act of vandalism. Bournemouth was snatched from Hampshire and thrust into Dorset.
We have no particular connection with the south-west. The road links from Dorset to the south-west are virtually non-existent, and the rail links are totally non-existent. All our connections are towards London and the central south coast region. My local authority and others along the south coast have developed the South Coast Metropole, which works together to market attractions and economic development. That is sensible, and we should have a central southern region that incorporates all the areas that sit together naturally.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that the same problem exists in other parts of the country. For example, Gloucestershire has far more in common with Hereford and Worcester than with what is termed the south-west, for which Cornwall and Devon are given priority and Gloucestershire loses out.

Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that I sought to make, although I was concentrating on my own constituency. Areas throughout the country feel that they do not properly belong to the region into which a Department of Government has thrust them. If the Government intend to pursue a regional policy, I hope that they will re-examine the regional boundaries to try to fix them on the basis of economic cohesion rather than by drawing inappropriate lines on a map.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I am pleased that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has given us another opportunity to debate tourism. At one time, I thought that tourism debates were taboo, but we have had three of them since then.
The Government's long-awaited strategy for tourism has been published. I welcomed the establishment of a tourism forum that included many sectors of the industry and employee representatives, because only through consultation with the industry can we progress. The forum sets high goals. I agree that standards must be raised, so we must invest in the people who work in the industry and in our attractions. We must market effectively at home and abroad.
If we are to increase the tourism yield without damaging the environment, quality must be the name of the game. I make no bones about congratulating the Government on their decision to make the tourism forum a permanent fixture. The forum and the Government will together monitor the progress and assess the annual achievement of goals at a tourism summit. Continued monitoring by those who have real enthusiasm for the industry, and a great deal of expertise, is essential if we are to achieve our goals.
A national body is the only group that can effectively monitor international developments, despite changes in Scotland and Wales. The forum must take care to assess the best achievements of our competitors abroad. I do not mean that we should duplicate what they provide, but we should learn from them and match the quality of their facilities and service.
Both the tourist and the business traveller are becoming ever more discerning, and they demand good standards. Many of our hotel prices—especially in London—are high in comparison with those of Europe, the United States and Asia. We must ensure, therefore, that our standards of service and the quality of our facilities are improved and kept high.
Visitors should also be entitled to clarity and ease of understanding. The new national grading system for hotels and guest houses must achieve that. It should be simple to understand, and it should be implemented without delay. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House when she expects the programme to be achieved.
The tourism forum is very much in line with the Liberal Democrat call for a permanent tourism commission. Nine months ahead of the Government's strategy, we called for a joint Government and industry body, headed by the Tourism Minister. Its role would be to propose strategy, set standards and monitor achievements.
It is of paramount importance that the tourism forum and summits do not disintegrate into talking shops. I seek assurances from the Minister that agendas for the summits
will be wide reaching and that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will give priority and vigour to implementing recommendations.
For many years, successive Governments neglected to recognise how much tourism contributes to the economy. Governments must never forget that the industry is worth £53 billion a year, employing 1.75 million people, or 7 per cent. of the work force. It is more important, economically, point of view, than all the Department's other functions put together.
I cannot join those who oppose the minimum wage. I recognise that the cost of living is much higher in London than in, for example, the north-west, and I should prefer a regional minimum wage. However, I also accept that the minimum wage has, for the time being, been set fairly. For far too long, businesses in the tourism industry have suffered excessively high staff turnover because of low wages and poor prospects for training. There has been a vicious circle. Many businesses have traditionally paid low wages not because they wanted to, or because they thought it right, but because they felt compelled to do so because their competitors did so. Now, forward-thinking businesses will be able to retain and train their staff. Training and skill retention are the key to much of the Government's strategy to raise standards and quality.
I suggest that the Government go further by considering a proposal that businesses should give training to their staff—an investment in education and training—through the introduction of a 2 per cent. levy on payrolls. The training could be provided in-house, or by approved training providers. Small and new businesses would be exempt. Some pioneering businesses already provide in-house training above that level, and their success shows how advantageous it is in the long term.
In other areas, Government policy remains sadly lacking. Transport is a major component in the tourism product, and the tourism document suggests that hotels, shops and restaurants should be built near main transport routes. Does the Minister intend to have Stonehenge and the lake district moved? The very nature of tourism is that tourism-related facilities must be placed very close to attractions if they are to be used and so be viable. Much of our tourism product is based on our landscape and existing heritage sites, many of which are located in areas that receive little publicity and have few public transport facilities.
One of the greatest problems facing our domestic tourist industry is that our traditional resorts are declining. Through funding from the lottery, special regeneration budgets and European grants, it is gradually becoming possible to preserve and upgrade some existing attractions and to create new ones at those resorts. The funding is currently only a trickle, but I hope that the regional development agencies will concentrate on meeting the pressing need for funds.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the regeneration of some of our traditional seaside resorts, which currently have to cope with crumbling infrastructure and with being on the periphery, both geographically and economically. The danger is that many of them will become fixed-income economies unless more is done to boost economic

activity. The debate has concentrated on foreign tourism, but less than 10 per cent. of tourists come from overseas. The problem for our seaside resorts is that most people in this country live within an hour of their regional airport, rather than their seaside resort. Will my hon. Friend urge the Government to do more to regenerate seaside economies?

Mr. Fearn: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The improvements that we have mentioned will be of no value if potential customers are prevented from having access to the resorts, most of which are located around the coast. Since the election, the Government's refusal to upgrade roads to the resorts has been a continuing problem. It would be an acceptable and even laudable policy if only public transport access to those towns were increased; sadly, no such improvements have materialised. It really is a case of putting the cart before the horse.
In my constituency, there is continued investment in infrastructure and in old and new attractions through the construction of the attractive new promenade, grants for the restoration of the pier and the new modern tourist entertainment site that is soon to be developed on the seafront. However, there has been no improvement in rail services or roads feeding into the area, despite our receiving more than 4 million day visitors per year. The story is the same throughout the country: even if resorts are developed, the congestion involving in getting to them and going home, which causes irritation and pollution, deters visitors from returning. Does that help or encourage the 40 per cent. of the population who do not even take holidays to visit our coast, or our attractive inland resorts and countryside?
I urge the Minister to ask her colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to rethink their current policies. I do not mean that they should tarmac everything in sight, but they should invest more in public transport that is geared to tourism areas and occasionally allow the placing of a strategic route to an unserved area whose economy depends on it. Reopening some of the excellent tourist rail routes closed by Beeching, such as the one that ran from Preston to Southport via the Burscough Curves, would be a real step towards making our railways a public asset once more; many such lines are still available for redevelopment.
The Government must do more to create the right economic climate for tourism to flourish. I have asked time and again what progress has been made in investigating the proposal to reduce value added tax on hotel accommodation to average European levels. That question has not been answered in the tourism document, or by the Minister.
Will the Minister vigorously fight the threat to impose air passenger duty both ways on internal flights in the United Kingdom? Tourism is the largest industry in Scotland and is essential to the economic future of Northern Ireland. As the great majority of international visitors to the UK arrive in London and then travel on within the UK, is not that tax an incentive to the tourist to stay in the London area, which already teems with tourists in summer? Surely, sustainable tourism involves encouraging visitors to spread throughout the country, rather than deterring them from doing so. The BTA and the BITOA are especially alarmed by that development and I ask the Minister to take the matter seriously.


It cannot be handled by the new Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, but must be dealt with here in Westminster; I urge her to support Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
Finally, may I remind the Minister that, in spite of promises to do so, she has yet to visit Southport?

Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief and raise only three points, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
The first point follows from the remarks about the south-west by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Although there are indeed concerns about the borders of the south-west, even as they stand, it is worth pointing out to the Minister that the south-west, with its infinitesimal amount of grant per head compared with that of Wales and Scotland, takes nearly double the number of tourists as Wales and Scotland combined. That cannot make sense. Along the whole Devon coast, tourism is almost, if not outright, the largest employer and biggest industry in seaside towns. Without tourism, there would be a major collapse of infrastructure in those areas, so it is essential that the Government pay greater attention to the creation of jobs in the tourist industry. We have not heard about job creation so far in the debate, and I urge the Minister to take that into consideration.
My other two points relate to upgrading. We must take positive steps to upgrade the standing of those who work in the catering and hotel industries. A chef in France is a person of considerable standing, but a chef in a hotel in Sidmouth is just a chef, because those who work in the tourist industry have no standing in their community. Many people come from Italy and France to work in hotels in this country, but I should prefer that we raise the standing in the community of such work, so that English people can take pride in working in the catering and hotel industry.

Mr. Quinn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many young people perceive a career in hospitality and catering—especially the culinary crafts—as being an attractive prospect? That enthusiasm is owed in part to the phenomenon of the television chef. As well as good English people, we have good Scottish, Irish and Welsh people, some of whom serve up fantastic dishes in Scarborough and Whitby in Yorkshire—I urge the right hon. Gentleman to come and try them.

Sir Peter Emery: We are doing better—no one would suggest that we are not on the up slope—but in most of the seaside resorts the number of people with good qualifications is extremely limited, so I want the Government to do more to upgrade in that area of work.
My last point relates to the upgrading of the standard of food and food preparation. One of the great features of France is the Michelin guide and the fact that one can go to nearly any town or village within France—the same applies to Italy—and enjoy food of the very highest standard. Unfortunately, that is not the position in Britain. However, Egon Ronay, with great ability, has raised the standard of cooking and the status of the chef, and amazingly in London we have two three-star Michelin restaurants. That would not have been thought possible a few years ago.
One of the great pleasures for a tourist or a holidaymaker is to go to a restaurant and have a special meal of a high standard. The Government should pay much greater attention to upgrading the standard of food and the standard of restaurants throughout the tourist industry. If the Minister were to pay some attention to that, she would do well. I apologise to the hon. Lady because I may not be able to remain in the Chamber to hear her entire speech. Madam Speaker has a ceremony at 11 o'clock in the Royal Gallery and I have to be in attendance. I thank the Minister for paying attention to what I have had to say.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to an extremely important debate about an extremely important industry. Indeed, it is the growth industry, as the Organisation for Co-operation and Development has indicated on many occasions. That applies not only to my area, the west country and especially Cornwall, but to the entire United Kingdom.
The trend towards a widening gap between support for the tourist industry in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the one hand and for England on the other has been apparent for a long time. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) may be forgiven for not recollecting what happened in the previous Parliament because he was not then a Member of this place. However, I thought I saw just now the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) in her place. Indeed, I thought that she got to her feet. I thought she said that she found this "deeply frustrating … differential funding" something to complain about and deplore.
I thought that the right hon. Lady was the Minister with responsibilities for tourism in the previous Government. I do not recall her making such a comment when I and many other hon. Members from other holiday industry areas complained about the widening gap. Indeed, the per capita figure, to which hon. Members have referred, widened dramatically during the period of the Conservative Government, to a point where mere pence were being used to promote the industry in important areas of England, while the pounds were increasing in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. During the right hon. Lady's period in office—if it was she who was here and not her ghost—the gap widened drastically.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the development of the Government's devolution policies have added a new dimension to the debate about the disparity in funding between the various parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Tyler: I do indeed. I hope that the Government will respond by expressing a clear view. I welcome sinners who repent; if the hon. Gentleman is saying that the previous Conservative Government were deplorable in this regard, I entirely agree with him. I hope that we can redress the balance.
In Cornwall, which is the holiday destination par excellence in the United Kingdom after London, we have had very little tourism promotion and we still have, as has been accepted in our bid for objective 1 status under European Union regional funds, the lowest household


incomes in the country. We still have high levels of unemployment. Therefore, the promotion of the industry is extremely important.
I take up a specific point that was referred to briefly by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), and that is what he described as cowboys. I prefer to refer to them as pirates. I am talking about the differential in terms of costs and controls between legitimate real businesses and those who by various means escape costs and controls. This differential is widening dramatically. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree—he made the point himself—that that is largely the result of controls and regulations introduced by the previous Conservative Government rather than since the general election.
For example, fire regulations dramatically ratcheted up costs. I do not understand why it is better for a visitor to be burnt in his or her bed when there are five bed places in the establishment than to be burnt if there are six or more. There must come a point where that differential does not make sense. As for health and hygiene, why is it better to contract food poisoning in a small establishment than in a large one? Surely that is something that we need to redress.
Trade refuse charges have been introduced throughout holiday areas as a means of trying to maintain a healthy local authority economy. Those charges impinge so much more heavily on legitimate businesses than on pirates. The uniform business rate brings about a dramatic difference between those who are registered as businesses and those that are not. As for value added tax, throughout the previous Parliament those of us who represented holiday areas were complaining about the lack of harmony, not only in terms of accommodation but in respect of all facilities. Having failed miserably to persuade the Conservative Government to take the issue seriously, I hope that the Labour Government will reconsider the matter.
All these matters differentiate between two separate groups. The pirates, as I describe them, evade extra costs. For example, they have more bed spaces than is legitimate and they manage to escape detection. They must be effectively monitored and then brought within the system.
However, now that the cost differential is so very great, we must find a way of bringing those who run perfectly reasonable, good small businesses, offering a welcome to their visitors, for example, within the system.
I think that there is genuine unanimity about the importance of the industry. I believe that all three parties are taking it a great deal more seriously than they did 10 years ago, for example. However, let us not forget that the trend has been against us for many years. Reversing that trend will require all the Minister's energies and enthusiasm, and those of many other Departments of government.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this brief but important debate on the tourism industry. I congratulate him also on the characteristically thoughtful and articulate way in which he introduced the debate. He spoke of the things that really matter to those who are involved in

the industry. He referred to its economic importance, which is not in doubt. He spoke of issues relating to transport, planning, sustainable development and regulation. These are the things which those in the tourism industry want to hear discussed in this place.
I thank my other right hon. and hon. Friends who have participated in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) both made immensely worthwhile contributions based on long experience and knowledge of the tourism industry. I was particularly struck by the points that they made about the local importance of tourism to their constituents as well as the national importance of tourism, with which we are all familiar.
It is pleasant to see the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), who alone represents Labour interests on the Government Back Benches. It is a pity that not more of his colleagues came into the Chamber to join in the debate. I had the opportunity of visiting Scarborough not long ago. I know how much work is going on in that town to support the tourism industry. I know, for example, of the transport problems that it faces. I will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman by reminding him of the Deputy Prime Minister's visit and the story of the bogus train ride.

Mr. Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ainsworth: No. I do not have time to give way. We can talk about the matter afterwards, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
Everyone in this place agrees about the huge economic significance of tourism. Since taking up her office, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has tried quite hard. She has a warm personality, but, unfortunately, that and warm words are not enough. I feel that there is growing frustration in the tourism industry. It is not only that the Department's budget for tourism is being cut by ¢2 million in real terms; there are growing concerns that most of the major issues that confront tourism are not being addressed.
We looked forward to the publication of the tourism strategy. Ten months overdue, and boasting the fatuous new logo of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, it appeared. However, it is not a strategy at all. Like so much else that emanates from the Government, it is designed to give the impression of busy activity, without committing Ministers to doing anything much, except attending the occasional summit. Publicly, the industry was lukewarm about the document, though others were more critical. Privately, those in the industry are angry at the wasted opportunity. They are angry that the document was bereft of useful national data and failed utterly to address their key concerns.
What are those concerns? The Minister may be told and may even believe that all is well. It is not. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire about the trade deficit. We heard about falling visitor numbers to the main attractions and our declining position in world markets. There are other problems—regulation, bureaucracy, planning constraints, licensing problems and transport gridlock. Those are the issues which we hear about when we listen to the tourism industry. Nowhere does the Government's tourism strategy document offer any hope or practical suggestions on those matters.


The tourism industry is defending the front line against the Government's remorseless extension of bureaucracy and new taxes. Since I May 1997, the Government have introduced no fewer than 2,400 new regulations, many of which bear hardest on the tourism industry—for example, the national minimum wage. The problem for decent, hard-working people in smaller businesses is not the cost of paying the national minimum wage, as the overwhelming proportion of them do anyway, but the cost of administering it—the extra paperwork, the extra systems, the extra associated costs and the consequent lower profits, leading to less investment and fewer jobs.
For some, like members of the British Activity Holiday Association, who employ large numbers of younger people away from home on short contracts, the minimum wage spells possible disaster. I know that strong representations have been made to the Minister about the adequacy of the £20 accommodation off-set, and whether it will be increased or even maintained. I hope that those representations have not fallen on deaf ears, and I look forward to the Minister's comments on that in her reply. The activity holiday industry will be listening carefully, too.
Let us consider the working time directive. The tourist industry, more than any other, needs flexibility in its labour force. It is true that the majority of large corporations in this sector can absorb the extra costs of such measures. They do not want to do so, it will cost them many millions of pounds and it will mean fewer jobs, but they can do it. However, the majority of the industry is made up of small businesses, which can ill afford the extra costs of bureaucracy. The fixed on-costs of compliance in terms of extra clerical work, computer systems and so on are much the same whether a business is turning over £50 million or £500,000, but the burden is greater on smaller businesses.
The parental leave directive, the part-time workers directive, the working families tax credit and the child care credit all pile further costs on to an industry that the Minister claims to support. Then there is the Government's policy of fairness at work in the Employment Relations Bill currently under consideration. I wonder how many people running small hotels or restaurants are aware of what the Government have up their sleeve for them, such as compulsory trade union recognition for companies employing as few as 21 people, and parental leave proposals whose only social and economic effect will be to make it harder for women to get jobs in an industry that has traditionally led the way in providing employment opportunities for women, training them and promoting them.
Each and all of those measures are bad for the tourist industry, but the cumulative effect could be crippling. In the short term, it could drive many businesses out, and in the long run the Government are erecting enormous barriers to new entrants to the market. Does the Minister know that, while she goes around heaping praise on the tourism industry, her Government are busily erecting barriers to those dynamic new entrants who want to make it grow? In doing so, the Government are creating an underlying structural weakness in the entire industry, which it will take years to put right.
I have dwelt on the sins of omission perpetrated by the so-called tourism strategy. There is one sin of commission that cannot go unmentioned. It was touched on earlier. The Government's original intention was to abolish the

English tourist board. No one asked for that. It was proposed as part of the Government's overall political agenda to do with the federalisation of England. Faced with enormous hostility from the industry, the Government at first dithered, then fudged. We are now to have an English tourism council.
The most striking feature of this new body is that, unlike its counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, it will have no remit to market the country that it purports to represent. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that there will be no one to handle the 300 or so consumer and media calls each month that are taken at present by the English tourist board, and that there will be no one to answer questions about tourism in England. Does she expect that work to be undertaken by the British Tourist Authority? If so, will the BTA be remunerated for that? It is already closing offices around the world because it cannot afford to keep them open. Incidentally, it does an excellent job, as do the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland tourist boards, and many of the regional tourist boards.
The replacement of the English tourist board by a neutered central bureaucracy is a slap in the face for England. As the Minister knows, the chief executive of the English tourist board has resigned. He was a marketing man, who was brought in to do a marketing job. That job has been removed and he has gone. There is no chairman at present, either, so matters are being allowed to drift.
I say that England needs a voice. It is not surprising, but it is depressing none the less, that I increasingly hear people in the industry questioning whether they would be better off if they were sponsored by another Department. The answer to that, in my view, is that they would not. It is not a different Department that they need, but a different Government. They need a Department that will believe in them, that will act for them and that can carry clout across Whitehall. It is already abundantly clear that they will not get that from Labour.

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing the debate on an extremely important industry, as he rightly said. That is why the Government produced the strategy that has been referred to frequently in the debate, and which I shall deal with later.
Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world. As has already been said, one in five new jobs that have been created in the past 10 years have been in the industry. The Government estimate that it is worth £53 billion a year to the economy, and as we know, it employs 1,750,000 people.
Hon. Members have touched on various issues that are the responsibility of other Government Departments, such as VAT on accommodation—

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: What about joined-up government?

Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government's strategy contains a proposal to do with joined-up government. For the first time ever, we shall have a tourism summit that will bring together Ministers


from all Government Departments to discuss the needs of the industry. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what his Government did to support the industry? I remind him that for the first time ever, this Government have a Minister with the word "Tourism" in her title. The previous Government were not prepared to give the industry such acknowledgement.
I see that the Opposition have belatedly set up a forum to consult the industry. In the course of producing our strategy, we consulted no fewer than 200 representatives of the industry. That is a record which the hon. Gentleman quite simply cannot match.
Many hon. Members have referred to funding and the disparities between England and Scotland and Wales. I am sorry, but I have to say yet again that the previous Government reduced funding for the English tourist board from £25.8 million in 1988–89 to less than £10 million when they left office. It is relevant to remind the House that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) was parliamentary private secretary to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) when she was Secretary of State.
We have heard much criticism and, first, the national minimum wage and the great burdens that it is putting on the industry was mentioned.

Mr. Butterfill: Although it is absolutely true, as the Minister says, that funding was reduced under the previous Government, this Government have continued that process. Funding for the English tourist board was £10.3 million when they came to power; they reduced it to £9.9 million. Funding for the British Tourist Authority was reduced from £36.5 million to £35 million. Even if the much-vaunted £5 million over three years is included, that comes to £40 million for the BTA by the end of that period. If the Government had simply put funding up by 3 per cent. on the figure that they inherited, the total would have been £41.08 million.

Janet Anderson: We would all like there to be more money, but what we do with what we have available is the important issue. There has been an increase in funding to the BTA, the ETB has been restructured and the new English tourism council has been set up. One reason for that—I will come to this later, if I have time—is to release more money into the regions. Would Conservative Members prefer that money not to go to the regions?

Mr. Ainsworth: Before the Minister moves on—and, I hope, moves away from her trip down memory lane—will she confirm that the departmental budget for tourism is being cut?

Janet Anderson: I do not want to repeat things over and over again, because we do not have that much time, but the hon. Gentleman knows that funding to support tourism has been increased for the first time in many years. Through our restructuring, we have made sure that there will be more money to go into the regions, and that has been widely welcomed by the regions.
May I quickly counter some of the criticism that we have heard this morning by quoting some of the

comments that we have received about our strategy? The British Casino Association said:
I write to congratulate you on the publication of 'Tomorrow's Tourism' which shows a cohesive approach to improving Britain's competitiveness as a world class tourism destination.
The Holiday Care Service said:
I was very pleased to see that the new Tourism Strategy which your Department published a couple of weeks ago highlights the way in which the industry can play its part in helping to create a fully inclusive society.
CenterParcs wrote:
Firstly, I don't want the launch of 'Tomorrow's Tourism' to go by without congratulating you again on the very considerable feat of having managed to get a very clear and focused strategy document from the many and quite disparate views held within the tourism industry.
There are many more

Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?

Janet Anderson: No, I will not give way again; I have given way several times and I want to get on with what I have to say.
Conservative Members have referred to the national minimum wage. I do not know whether they are aware that, on the day that the pay of 2 million employees increased as a result of the national minimum wage, a new independent report showed that companies in the sector most affected—the service sector—are experiencing expansion, not job losses as some predicted. I suggest that Conservative Members refer to the report of the Low Pay Commission and study it with care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) has been helpful to me in my post as Tourism Minister and I compliment him on what has been happening in his constituency. Reference was made to lack of partnership, but, as my hon. Friend said, partnership is very much in evidence in Scarborough and Whitby and previously declining seaside resorts are going through a substantial period of regeneration. I congratulate him on his contribution to that.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said that he did not understand the division of ministerial responsibilities in the Department. We have not only joined-up government, but a joined up Department as well. We speak to each other.
The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to cowboys in the industry; we want to deal with them. We also want to do something about quality in the industry. Only yesterday, I was consulting a group of hoteliers to see what we can do.
The reputation of the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) is well known and he knows the problems of the industry only too well. I will do my best to visit Southport soon. He referred to transport routes and to the lake district in particular. I invite him to keep a close eye on developments because, before too long and following consultations with my colleagues in other Departments, we will be making announcements to do with the lake district. The Cumbria tourist board has already put together its own business plan based on our strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism".
"Tomorrow's Tourism", the Government's new strategy for the development of tourism in England, was developed with the help of Departments across Whitehall


and with the co-operation of nearly 200 representatives of the industry. I will not set out the raft of initiatives detailed in the strategy, because we do not have time, but all are a first for any Government and such problems have never before been addressed by any Government. I say to Conservative Members that "Tomorrow's Tourism" will not be a "here today, forgotten tomorrow" strategy. It contains well-thought-out, genuine commitments to action and is a springboard to the future. It will remain the basis of our agenda for years to come. Unlike the hon. Member for East Surrey, we set up a tourism forum—some considerable time ago—which will continue and will be followed by a ministerial summit with Ministers from all Departments.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who initiated the debate, said that there is no national training organisation for the industry. I reassure him that the Hospitality Training Foundation is the NTO for those in hospitality-related occupations. There is widespread recognition that the quality of customer service provided by the people employed by the tourism, hospitality and leisure businesses is crucial to success. That is why a working group of our tourism forum considered how the industry could improve the way in which it recruits, manages, motivates and equips its people with the skills that they need to provide excellent customer service. The objective is to build a more stable, appropriately-skilled work force for the future.
I invite hon. Members on both sides of the House to join in national hospitality week in June, and to initiate events in their areas to highlight the importance of the industry and the career opportunities it can provide for our young people.
Particular reference has been made to planning. As reported in "Tomorrow's Tourism"—I wonder whether some of the hon. Members who spoke in the debate have bothered to read it—the Government are researching how planning policy guidance for England can best facilitate leisure and tourism developments while achieving more sustainable patterns of development in travel. That research will be completed this year.
Concern, of which we are aware, has rightly been expressed about the burden of regulations on the industry. The forum and the summit will be considering that issue. There has also been much criticism of regionalism. We are creating the English tourism council—which will be a more effective, leaner national body for tourism in England—to focus on the national strategic framework rather than on provision of direct services.
Reference was made to the lack of national data; that will be one of the functions for the new strategic body. We will also ensure that all the regions of England can benefit from the future growth of tourism. A greater proportion of funding will directly support tourism in the regions and the new regional development associations will make tourism a key part of their economic development strategies.
Finally, I say again that the Government take the industry very seriously.

Kosovo

11 am

Mr. Tony Worthington: The immediate impetus for this Adjournment debate is last week's visit by the International Development Committee to Macedonia and Albania. It was, of course, a very moving visit, on which we saw the full scale of Milosevic's barbarity towards Kosovo. It was also a useful visit, in that a Committee of this House is now in close touch with that immensely important area and will be able to help the House, through first-hand knowledge, in its important deliberations on this matter. I hope that some of my colleagues who were on that visit will be able to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We had access to all the major players in the area and I should like to thank them for their co-operation. One issue about which we were concerned—we made this clear on our return to Britain—was the number of refugees to be allowed into this country. I was disturbed that this country, which is risking so much to combat Milosevic's fascism, should be attracting criticism for seeming to do so little to accept refugees. While we were in the region, Britain was certainly not an option available to refugees, whereas other countries were being much more open. I am delighted that, following the Prime Minister's visit, that has been put right. It was uncomfortable to be urging the Macedonians to honour their international obligations when we were not clearly willing to pick up our own.

Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be most grateful for your guidance on this matter. The title of the debate on the Order Paper refers only to neighbouring countries, but the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has introduced into his dissertation the general subject of refugees and their admission to this country. I am sure that he is right so to do, and it is central to our discussion of the issue, but I should be grateful for your ruling on whether, in this context, Britain counts as a neighbouring country of Kosovo.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): It is clear to everyone that Britain is certainly not a neighbouring country. However, I would say that the two issues go together and the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has been perfectly in order so far.

Mr. Worthington: I thank you for your predictable ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If my speech appears to dwell more on Macedonia than Albania, it is not because Albania is unimportant. It is facing the greatest challenge in terms of numbers and is the poorest country in the region. Some of the challenges are common to both Albania and Macedonia, but there are some extra dimensions to the Macedonian position and I hope that other hon. Members will speak about Albania more fully than I shall.
It is absolutely clear that Milosevic's war game is to destabilise Macedonia. By far the most important political issue in Macedonia is the relationship between the numerically dominant Slays and the more rapidly growing Albanian population. There is a visceral fear among the


Slavs that they will lose their dominance. After all, the refugee issue is not just one of the past few weeks. When I first went to Macedonia a few years ago, we were praising the Macedonians for their hospitality to Muslims fleeing from the Milosevic-inspired outrages in Bosnia. Now, nearly 200,000 Albanians have been pushed callously out of Kosovo into Macedonia. It is absolutely essential that Macedonia is stabilised if we are to ensure success in the conflict with Milosevic over Kosovo.
Unfortunately, during the Select Committee's visit to Macedonia and Albania, I found that not enough was being done internationally to focus on the issue. It is essential to military success in the Kosovo campaign that humanitarian, economic and political support for Macedonia is augmented. For example, if there is to be a ground approach by NATO troops, the Macedonian entry—which is linked to the Greek port of Thessaloniki—is a key matter. For years, the relationship between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been fraught—the very name indicates that—and it must be harmonised.
What should be done? Milosevic regards the destabilisation of Macedonia as a major prize, which is why he shoves Kosovars towards Macedonia. While we were there, trainloads were coming in—far more than the overfull camps could cope with. According to UNICEF, there are now nearly 200,000 refugees in Macedonia and, unbelievably, more than 90,000 are staying with Macedonian families while a similar number are in camps. When we were planning our trip the week before, the number was not 200,000, but 130,000 to 140,000. The number has soared in recent days as Milosevic has turned on the taps.
It has been argued that if the refugees were taken out of the region, that would be doing Milosevic's job for him. That argument lacks conviction; it is an arid argument. Such are the numbers that many refugees will remain in Macedonia anyway. It is not a case of either Macedonia or elsewhere; it is both. While I was there last week, an increasing number of refugee-bearing planes were flying out, but they were heavily outnumbered by Milosevic's new victims coming in.
Taking our full share of refugees is not the only reassurance that we can give Macedonia as an aid to winning this conflict. We must immensely strengthen the performance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in coping with the refugees in Macedonia. Frankly, the day was saved at the start by the British-inspired NATO forces putting up the camps in Macedonia. However, the refugee programme cannot be militarised other than in the short term. The other UN organisations and non-governmental organisations yearn for the UNHCR to be powered up for that huge job which, whatever happens in respect of the military effort, will be needed for at least many months. I saw no sign on the ground that the UNHCR had anywhere near the horsepower that it needed to cope with this huge challenge in the Balkans. Can the Minister give any reassurance on that?
We must also help out the Macedonian economy. At the outset of the crisis, Macedonia had 40 per cent. unemployment. Because of the crisis, it has now lost its export trade in food and textiles, which has to go through Serbia. Unemployment is now much higher. Huge

numbers of refugees are now in Macedonian homes with no extra resources to sustain them. It is worth pointing out that, if one uses the index of 100, the Macedonian GDP was 100 in 1989 when Yugoslavia broke up, whereas it is now 60. The country is having to bear the cost of the transport, policing and many other aspects of the refugee crisis, yet it has less income than before the crisis.
Other problems loom—I was told that the biggest threat was that the sanitation system was incapable, in the long term, of coping with the extraordinary pressures put on it by the refugees. Life for the ordinary Macedonian is getting worse because of the huge influx by a feared minority. For how long will the Macedonians blame Milosevic rather than the Albanians? They need help in bearing the cost of that influx.
Recently, the European Union distributed aid to Albania and Montenegro, but Macedonia was left out because its books were not in order. To be told by the EU that one's books are not in order is a sick joke. Get the money out and monitor it scrupulously, but do not make a tragedy into a catastrophe by accountancy. Countries such as Macedonia and Albania need money now. Poor government capacity is an indication of the scale of the problem, not an excuse for inaction. Will the Government ensure that Macedonia, like Albania and Montenegro, will receive immediate budgetary support from the EU?
May I ask the Minister a more general question? Does he believe that the EU can play an active part at present, in the light of the collapse of the Commission? The Commission staff must feel so shell shocked by the revelations of poor behaviour that they are afraid to act decisively. Is there not a case for Heads of Government to agree on extra special measures to shift committed money out of Brussels and to get it working to good effect in the Balkans? I gather that a meeting will take place today in Paris with the World bank, the European Union and others to look at the structural support that will be needed for those countries.
The size of the camps—Kukes in Albania has about 1,000 residents—is putting an unreasonable strain on the infrastructure of these poor countries. It is not that the camps around Tirana are testing its sewerage system to the limit, because Tirana does not have a sewerage system. The health threats in the summer are considerable. We cannot expect NGOs and United Nations organisations to deal with major civil engineering and governmental tasks. NATO stepped in early to rescue the situation in the camps, but development should not be militarised. I should be grateful to hear from the Minister how these structural issues are to be tackled.
These countries cannot be asked to cope with a million refugees by providing new roads, power, water, sewerage and other systems that are not linked into the infrastructure for the whole population. It is inevitable and right that the host population should benefit from the development of the infrastructure that will be necessary for the refugees.
We all hope that the war will be rapidly resolved, and that the refugees will be able to return home. However, we shall not be forgiven if we do not plan for the worst. At the moment, we cannot produce enough tents or sites to house the ever-growing number of refugees. The refugees will not be able to live in tents in the Balkan winter, and we have seen that some of the sites are


already unsuitable. They are in the wrong location, have poor water facilities and inadequate sanitation, and places for latrines are already running out.
Long-term camps require education facilities, better health services, including reproductive health services, and attention for people's psychosocial needs. We are desperately trying to provide primitive accommodation for those expelled from Kosovo, but we may soon have to start again. Hundreds of thousands of refugees may have to be rehoused in winter quarters that do not yet exist, either in fact or even on paper.

Mr. Roger Casale: Does my hon. Friend welcome the doubling of funds by the British Government to help to meet the costs of the refugee crisis? Does he accept that a further doubling of funds may be necessary very soon? Will he give the House some assessment of the resources that should be made available immediately and in the longer term for the management of the refugee crisis and the eventual rebuilding of Kosovo?

Mr. Worthington: Of course I welcome the doubling of the funds. What I am trying to get across in my speech is the fact that we cannot approach this matter only on the military and the humanitarian front. A major improvement of the infrastructure is required, and that cannot be organised by NGOs. It must be done by major international organisations, such as the World bank and the European Union, but I need convincing that they are geared up for what will happen not in the coming months, but in the coming weeks so that they can provide what is needed for the Balkan winter.
I came back from the Balkans with mixed emotions: anger at the despicable actions of Milosevic; admiration for the courage of the refugees; intense respect for the humanitarian work of UN organisations, such as the World Food Programme; pride in the work being done by the British NGOs; and admiration for the organisational skills of NATO in rescuing the humanitarian situation. I came back utterly determined that we should recognise and respond to all the dimensions of this problem, and not merely restrict ourselves to the humanitarian and military aspects. Much more is needed.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I was not on the Select Committee visit to the Balkans at the beginning of last week, because I had already accepted an invitation to visit Tirana in Albania, sponsored by the European Children's Trust. After consultation with the Chairman of the Select Committee, I felt that that would add an extra dimension and provide a different view of what is going on out there, so I went on my own to Tirana.
In passing, I should like to mention the European Children's Trust, which gave me the only good news of my visit. It has been working in Romania since the problems there began, and it is now closing orphanages because it has found good foster homes for the children. Many of their natural parents who abandoned them have come back to claim them. I wanted to begin on a bright note to show that there is a little light at the end of some of these tunnels.
Tirana was away from the front line, which was interesting because the refugees there had had an opportunity to reflect on their future and had recovered a

little from the initial shock, although they were still pretty dazed. The city council in Tirana was assessing what was needed for its own people and for the refugees. In 1997, the population of Tirana was 250,000, and it had the infrastructure—social services, education and health services—that more or less catered for that number. By 1999, the population had almost doubled to 450,000, and in the past month, 43,000 refugees have come into Tirana city-—25 per cent. of the population have come to Tirana in a few weeks. Of those refugees, 33 per cent. are in host families—they are staying with anyone who will have them.
Host families in Albania have an average income of £15 a month, and some of them are catering for two or three families. I visited the Sipri family, who are a family of three. They are unemployed, because there is very little work in Tirana. They live in a tiny, two-roomed flat, and because of their son's long-standing link with a family of six, including two children, they welcomed them into their tiny flat and were feeding and coping with them on £15 a month.
I also visited what was described to me as a model refugee camp. It was a small camp on the site of the old Tirana municipal swimming pool, which no longer had any water in it. It was built for 2,000 by UNHCR, but it already had 3,000 refugees in it and others were moving in every day. When I visited, the mud was drying up and the sun was coming out, so it was looking a little better, but there were 20 latrines for more than 3,000 people which, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) reminded us, could cause infections and other problems in the summer months. It was desperately overcrowded, and there were no cooking facilities and no hot water. I think that the Select Committee saw a better refugee camp in Rwanda when we visited that country last year. The camp I saw in Tirana was appalling, yet it was described as a model camp.
The men in the camp were unanimous: they wanted to have guns and to join the Kosovo Liberation Army so that they could get back to Kosovo to fight for freedom. On the whole, the women wanted to stay in Albania, because they had small children. They were also worried about their families, and they wanted to stay put until they knew what had happened to them.
I visited a women's hospital with its director, Dr. Kallajxhi. It was one of the worst places I have ever seen; Florence Nightingale would have been ashamed. It is the main women's hospital for Tirana, the capital city of Albania. It was dirty, there were building works all over the place—even above and below the wards where women were giving birth—and very few painkillers were available, so the women who had suffered so much coming out of Kosovo were not getting any relief in childbirth. Most of the equipment was 20 years old.
The hospital was catering for the people of Tirana as well as for the refugees, which made it difficult because it did not have the staff. Many of the women were having abortions: many were having to have extensive gynaecological repairs and some were having hysterectomies because of the damage they had suffered after having been raped by Serbian soldiers. It was a distressing visit, and quite honestly the conditions in that hospital beggared belief.
At the end of my visit, I met Mr. Orhan Sakiqi, who is the head of the Tirana municipal council, and together we came to some conclusions. I appreciate that this is a small
area of the whole problem, but I felt that it would be useful to list the things that we believed were needed, especially in the medium and long term.
According to all those to whom I spoke, registration is a problem. As has been said, the UNHCR is not considered to be performing terribly well in Albania. Most of the refugees whom I met in Tirana had no papers, because they were not being processed—as we were told that they were—as the refugees crossed the border. The refugees were stuck with host families, with no identity and no papers. Some would like to come to the United Kingdom, but not many, because few of their friends and families are here owing to the United Kingdom's asylum and immigration policies over the past 10 years. That is one of the reasons why a number of them want to go to Germany. That is our fault, and we should be doing something about it.
The Sipri family, whom I visited, would like to go to Germany, where they have relatives, but they cannot do so because they have no papers. No one seemed to know how to remedy the problem, even the people in the municipality.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: There is no substitute for direct evidence. Let me ask a question, without any overtones. The hon. Lady spoke of rapes committed by Serbian soldiers. There seems to be considerable dispute about that, and I do not know the truth. Doubtless some rapes have taken place, but did the hon. Lady have direct evidence of rape committed by Serbian soldiers on a significant scale?

Dr. Tonge: I appreciate that it is a difficult question. Before I came to the House, I worked in gynaecology and family planning, and I know that it is sometimes difficult to assess the truth of what people say. Because I was in the area for only a short time, I heard the story directly from only a few people, but the evidence is that the same story is being told all over the place by all sorts of women who have had no contact with each other. A fortnight ago, some of us met two professionals, a paediatrician and a journalist, who had come from Kosovo. They had a good deal of evidence. There is certainly medical evidence in the hospital to which I referred that women have been brutalised, raped and then mutilated, and it was alleged that the Serbs had done it. That is all that I can say in answer to the hon. Gentleman.
Let me return to the problem of identity. The Government must put pressure on the UNHCR to get its act together and ensure that those people are registered.

Mr. David Heath: What my hon. Friend has said about the camps in Albania coincides with my experience in Macedonia. Record keeping and being able to trace refugees and record their stories are indeed problems, but, now that the necessary information technology is available, could that not be done largely out of country? Should not western countries be employing people to maintain databases, and relieve some of the pressure on the Albanians, the Macedonians and the relief agencies?

Dr. Tonge: The thought crossed my mind as well. I cannot see why the details of people's past lives,

homes and businesses cannot be recorded in England or Germany as easily as in Tirana or somewhere in Macedonia. I agree with my hon. Friend: surely computer technology could help. This is one of the most urgent problems for the refugees, who do not know where to turn, and are forced to remain non-people. They do not exist, and it is not possible to help people who do not exist.
As I have said, I was appalled by the state of the refugee camps. I am sure that our Government are putting pressure on the UNHCR to improve them, but I was interested by the Albanians' suggestion that smaller camps should be built to reflect the village communities that existed in Kosovo, and to keep people together so that they could give each other support.
One of my main worries is the lack of help for the tens of thousands of host families in Albania who are trying to manage on meagre incomes and looking after all the refugees. I do not know how long their patience will last. The European Children's Trust has developed a scheme whereby families' needs are assessed and a recommendation is made; they are then given direct financial help to buy food which is available in Albania, and any other supplies that they need. I urge our Government in particular to consider schemes that would enable us to help host families directly to support the refugees.
As for education, health and social services, there is a network—in other countries that we visited, there is no such network—but it is entirely inadequate. There are thousands of refugee doctors, nurses and teachers who can work and want to help their own people, but there is the matter of paying them a little to do so. Pressure should be put on all the authorities to mobilise the professionals in the refugee group to help with social services in Albania.
There is also an urgent need for medical equipment and medicines. I hope that our constituencies, including mine, will want to do something identifiable, rather than just giving money to an anonymous appeal. They could, for instance, focus on a hospital that badly needs updating, and some decent equipment and medicines. Europe, and our Government, could help with that as well.

Mr. Casale: The hon. Lady has told us about the present arrangements for the accommodation of refugees in Albanian host families and elsewhere. Given the state of the camps and the difficulties experienced by the host families, is there any prospect of accommodation being arranged there for refugees in the medium and longer term, or is the UNHCR right in saying that such accommodation can only be temporary and provisional, and that it will soon be necessary to move many of the refugees to other countries in western Europe?

Dr. Tonge: There are two aspects to the question. Some refugees, having reflected, are beginning to think that they would be better off in another country; but it was emphasised to me—although I spoke to only a small sample—that they wanted that to be on a temporary basis, especially the women and children.
As I said, the Albanians have suggested the establishment of medium to long-term villages, providing slightly better accommodation than tents—perhaps prefabricated buildings such as those that we had just after the war—so that people could live in village communities.


They would then be able to stay in the area among people they knew, and to return to Kosovo that much more quickly.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that the Albanians, and indeed the Macedonians, would not tolerate the influx of people even poorer than themselves indefinitely. They are responding magnificently now, but that may not last for ever, and there could be civil unrest. One of the most moving things said to me during my short visit was said by Mr. Sakiqi, the leader of Tirana council. He said, "Whatever Europe does, the Kosovars are our brothers, and we welcome them." The Albanian people have set us an example with their generosity and kindness, but we must realise that there is a huge financial implication for the future, and we must know where the money will come from. I trust that the Government will not make the Department for International Development contingency reserve meet the cost in the medium and long term. The money must come from the Treasury reserves; it cannot come out of the development budget. One thing is certain: we need to plan for the long term, and we need to plan quickly.

Ann Clwyd: I am sure that all hon. Members wish that the war had never been necessary. For a long time, we tried to negotiate with Milosevic and the Yugoslav Government in an attempt to reach some accommodation that would ensure that the ethnic cleansing that we are witnessing would not continue, but it was anticipated as far back as July 1995 that there would be refugees. One of the interesting things that we learned during our latest visit was that a disaster contingency plan had been drawn up as far back as July 1995 for 300,000 refugees from Kosovo to Albania and Macedonia. Hon. Members may well ask what happened to that plan.
The plan was jointly organised by the World Food Programme and the UNHCR. The programme has done its job in relation to the plan because there is no shortage of food and it is preparing to feed many thousands of refugees for months ahead, not only if they remain in Albania and Macedonia, but if, by some good chance, the war ends and they are able to return to their country.
Even if the war were to finish tomorrow, the refugees would have to be fed in Kosovo for about 16 months after their return because they have missed the planting season. Before they are able to plant again, obviously, they will need to be fed by the World Food Programme.
I wonder what happened to the plan. The meetings between the World Food Programme, the UNHCR and various other agencies were supposed to continue every three months. One of the things that are obvious to us after visiting the region twice in the past two weeks is that The UNHCR, for various reasons, has been caught short.
As some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, there is a shortage of tents in Albania. When we were there last week, 9,000 people were out in the open without cover. The UNHCR told us that there was a shortage of tents. There are other shortages. Refugees in both Macedonia and Albania are in overcrowded conditions. In Macedonia, the population in the camps is three times the density that the UNHCR considers acceptable.
Last week, I went to some of the camps for the second time in 10 days. What is clear is that, with the present numbers that are flooding across the border, it is

impossible for the existing camps to contain such numbers of people. Aid workers were saying to me that they wanted us to know that refugees had been threatening hunger strikes, or to burn some of the tents down unless things improved in the camps.
As the NATO commander made clear to us, there is a small window of opportunity. Only a few months are left to get people out of the camps before the winter comes. Unless they get out, when the winter comes, they will freeze to death. At the end of August, there will be the short-term problem of making arrangements for the winter.
On my first visit to the camps, people told me that their choice of country would have been the United Kingdom if that choice had been available to them, but that they had chosen other countries. In one case, a university professor and his family of three had been forced out of their home. He was forced out of his job at a museum by the Serbs, who brought a letter to him one day and said that he had no job. He went back to his home village and lived in a house with his family. One day, the paramilitaries came and burnt it down.
The professor then hid in a basement for two months. The paramilitaries came down that street as well and he had to flee. He and his family spent three nights on the road and in a forest, and many other nights in the open on the border. He said that he had been separated from his 90-year-old mother.
As hon. Members know, it is a story that many other people in the camps can tell: a story of separations and losses. They do not know where their children or elderly parents are. In some cases, their husbands were kept behind; they believe that they are now dead. All those refugees have stories of tragedy.
The refugees go to the camps and are asked which third country they would be ready to go to. That professor told me that he had been given a form and had put down Norway as his first choice because, as he said, although not in an accusatory way, the refugees understood that Britain did not want them. I met a man who was in another camp with his family, who put down Germany as his first choice. He was told that Britain was not an option. I asked the UNHCR people on the spot, who said that they had put down countries as options only if those countries had specified a quota.
Going there the second time, I picked up a form in one of the UNHCR tents where refugees were filling in their details. Of course, the vast majority have no papers at all: no passports, no identity cards—nothing to prove their identity. They were filling in forms for UNHCR.
I turned over one form. Again, it had the same list of countries on the back, and someone had written in biro—I presume that it must have been a refugee-"England." I have said many times how ashamed I was that the refugees thought that the United Kingdom did not want them, so I am delighted that the Prime Minister has stated that we are ready to take several thousand refugees, without specifying a quota. That is good news. I am pleased that he saw for himself the needs of those refugees and how impossible it is for countries such as Macedonia, which has 2.2 million people, to absorb such numbers.
Sixty per cent. of refugees are already in private homes in Macedonia. Again, the hospitality of the people who have taken refugees into their homes, in both Macedonia and Albania, has to be commended. However, it puts
enormous strains on families. Twenty-seven refugees were living in one home with two bedrooms. Obviously, that cannot go on because it strains the host family. They do not have the money to support those people. Some of my hon. Friends have talked about the low incomes in both Macedonia and Albania. We are now saying that we will be generous to the refugees who want to come to Britain. I am pleased about that.
In Albania, I was told by our embassy that we were giving no visas. Indeed, people who approach the embassy for visas are told to go to Istanbul. I hope that that is something that my hon. Friend the Minister will look into. It seems utter nonsense that we are sending people to Istanbul to apply for visas.
Last week, people were telephoning me from Manchester, including the wife of a man from Kosovo who has lived in this country for more than 10 years. He went to Albania to get his elderly parents who, two months ago, had come across from Kosovo. He was told that he could not get a visa to bring them back to Britain. Again, such incidents have to be investigated.
The strain on the Macedonian Government cannot be over-emphasised. As I have said, it is a small country of 2.2 million people. It is very poor, with 40 per cent. unemployment. It is having to pay for the transport of refugees to the camps and for the policing of those camps. The Deputy Foreign Minister, who spoke to us, mentioned the extra man hours for policing and the hospital treatment for refugees that Macedonia had to pay for. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, it is no longer able to export many of its goods to other countries.
In Macedonia, 87 contracts with EU countries have been cancelled. The Minister told us that he was afraid for the political stability of his country. It is right that we give countries such as Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania as much economic aid as possible. They must be assisted in dealing with the vast numbers of refugees who are flooding into their countries.
The UNHCR has a problem, although I do not know quite what it is; it may be understaffing. I have the greatest respect for UN agencies, as do my hon. Friends, but the UNHCR's role in this and what happened to the disaster preparedness plan must be investigated in the future.
I have been to many refugee camps and I have seen much worse; I can be realistic about the situation in which the Kosovars now find themselves. Many of the Kurds who fled across the mountains from Iraq into Iran 10 years ago are still in refugee camps in Iran. It is unlikely that Kosovars will return home in vast numbers before Kosovo is rebuilt.
Obviously, I hope that the war will soon be over, although I still consider that ground troops are essential. I said so on 14 January in the House and I have not changed my mind. I am sure that were the Prime Minister to obtain the backing of other EU countries, he would be ready to use those ground troops. The Americans' attitude is amazingly ambivalent. This is not the first time that they have been enthusiastic for a particular war, only to back off. Our Prime Minister is resolute. He completely opposes the hideous ethnic cleansing in which Milosevic is engaged.
I agree with the Government line that Milosevic must be defeated, that Kosovo must be a safe place to which the Kosovars can return, and that we must give Kosovo, and possibly Serbia when the war is over, as much economic aid as possible. In the meantime, we must persist in defeating what we all know, at the end of the 20th century, is no longer acceptable in Europe.

Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) refers, in the long title of his debate, to "Humanitarian and economic effects". I subsume those broadly into the social consequences of a huge tide of refugees. I understood you to rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be within order to discuss the impact that that may have on the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members may recall a rather peculiar incident that took place on the quayside at Calais some three months ago involving an exchange of fire between people whom the French police later identified as Kosovars, as a result of which some British tourists were injured. That gave rise to various questions, such as how they got there, what were they doing and how they had managed to come as far as the English channel carrying firearms.
Further inquiries disclosed that it was quite normal for British tourists returning home and lorry drivers with British registered vehicles to be intimidated, sometimes at gunpoint, by Kosovar refugees who want to enter the United Kingdom in their vehicles. That was before any announcement had been made on the acceptance of refugees.
That brings me to a subject to which the House must continue to direct its attention. I see from today's papers that MI6 and the other intelligence services are also involved. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has already reminded the House of certain findings of the German police authorities and Interpol regarding the high level of criminal infiltration in the KLA by Balkan criminal elements mainly concerned with drugs, immigration rackets and prostitution.
We know that a high criminal infiltration in any body results in a breakdown into gang warfare. The events on the quayside at Calais had every appearance of gang or factional warfare. For that reason, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, for whom I have huge respect, will not take it personally when I say that I wish that a Home Office Minister was present beside him who could pay some regard to my points. In the fullness of time, the criminality that pervades the KLA will be a matter of prime importance for consideration by the Government and the House of Commons.

Mr. Dalyell: It might be unreasonable to ask the Minister to comment in any kind of detail, but some of us do ask the Government for a statement on Tim Butcher's report in The Daily Telegraph today on MI6, and on the recurring reports that there is an investigation by Interpol and the Bundeskriminalamt Verfassungschutz. At least we should have the assurance that the Government take the matter seriously.

Mr. Clark: I hope that the Minister will infer from what I have said that that would be welcome.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): All I want to say at this stage is that Ministers in my Department are in close touch with Home Office Ministers about all the issues, and Home Office Ministers will take account of all that is said in this debate relating to their responsibilities.

Mr. Clark: I am grateful to the Minister for responding at this stage.
I listened with great concern to the first-hand accounts of visiting the camps by the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), and for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). The hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Cynon Valley spoke movingly and I would in no way impugn their testimony to the House. However, did not the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie have any intimation of the degree of intimidation and gang dominance within the camps?
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that she had heard from the Macedonian authorities that there was a threat of a hunger strike or of burning down the tents. Who is organising that threat? Why should perfectly ordinary decent people in a high level of distress consider starving themselves and their children and burning down the accommodation that has been provided by the great generosity of the west? I suggest that it is because they have been threatened and told that that is what they must do if they want to get into line and stay safe.
My evidence is anecdotal. I have not visited the camps myself. One of my sons is a soldier and, as the House knows, there is general gossip and an exchange of information among the services. He has given me anecdotal evidence of drug trafficking, violence and intimidation, and, in particular, the trawling of camps and the removal of likely candidates for prostitution rackets. Such things are habitual and recognised. I see the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie shifting in his seat. I hope that he will feel able to comment briefly on that.

Mr. Worthington: The camps are ripe for the kind of activity to which the right hon. Gentleman refers if we do not get the situation there right. If we simply allow things to go on as they are, they will become recruiting grounds for the KLA. Something similar happened in Rwanda and elsewhere. That is why I was emphasising the much more important point—rather than the issue that the right hon. Gentleman is stressing—that the vast majority of people in the camps are destitute and that appalling things have been done to them. We should concentrate on that point.

Mr. Clark: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and should not for a moment dispute the tenor of his comments. However, I feel that the House should be aware of the very high level and very wide diffusion of criminality within the camps and within the itinerant refugee bodies themselves.
When the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie says that we have to "get it right", I assume that he means that provision of direct aid to those bodies is not of itself sufficient, but that there will have to be a level of policing. There is no doubt that the flow, when it comes, of those people into equable and democratic western societies will cause enormous trouble, as it contains within it many people who are simply taking advantage of the situation to operate drug trafficking.
There has always been a very close link between the Albanian mafia, the Calabrian mafia in southern Italy, and drugs are the most portable and easily traded form of wealth. The moment that people get into that type of racketeering, violence, murder and intimidation follow. We have to be extremely careful to guard against such developments.
Magistrates in my constituency are already going out of their way to tell me of their experience in the London courts with Albanians affecting to claim refugee status. Those Albanians are being indoctrinated and told what to say by one or two groups of solicitors in the capital, who are clearly retained by criminal elements that are a part of the overall structure. They know how to ask for interpreters, to claim that they are below the appropriate age and to assert totally unjustified charges of racism, although they have been apprehended for genuinely criminal acts.
The House should be aware that the current situation is as good an opportunity as any for those groups. If we are not careful in our generous impulses—which are always one of the Chamber's most valuable responses to particularly objectionable crises; and first-hand testimony of which we have heard from hon. Members today—we shall be making ourselves vulnerable to a very great criminal influx.
I am glad that the Minister has said that the matter will be properly reported and that proper liaison on it will be made with the Home Office. It is an aspect of the whole tragic affair that—because it is so widely diffused, and the element of violence is so overt—our Government should be considering very seriously as they approach it.

Ms Tess Kingham: This is one of those rare occasions when I decide—halfway through a debate, after hearing hon. Members' speeches—to make a completely different speech from the one that I had planned on making. I should like very briefly to address the issue of psychosocial support, mental health and psychological support for refugees in camps and in host families in Macedonia and Albania. The issue may not seem relevant to the debate, but it is, and I hope that you will be patient with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and allow me to develop the argument.
Early in the NATO military campaign, I asked in the House whether psychosocial support would be provided very early for refugees, to ensure stability in the camps and in the surrounding areas, and when the refugees have returned to their homes in Kosovo. After visiting the camps and surrounding areas in Macedonia and Albania, and after speaking to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Red Cross, the World Health Organisation and refugees themselves, I am more convinced than ever that we have to co-ordinate psychosocial support and ensure that refugees receive at a very early stage the mental health support and counselling that they need.
The refugees have witnessed, or been victims of, a series of acts of terror. They have seen massacres. When we were at the Blace border crossing, we spoke to people who had seen piles of dead bodies by the roadside in villages around Lipjan. They have also witnessed beatings and threats. We spoke to refugees who said that the Serbs had daily entered their homes, holding guns to their
children's heads and saying, "Shall I shoot them today, mother? No—not today, but maybe tomorrow." After a few days of that type of intimidation, they left their homes.
The refugees have experienced rape. I was quite shocked to hear some of the comments on rape and intimidation made earlier in the debate. It is well known that women, particularly from the Muslim community and in a culture in which rape is deeply shaming, will not just come out and tell all and sundry that they have been raped. Rape is therefore very difficult to verify in such societies. Sometimes, the truth comes out only after months or years.
We spoke also to refugees whose homes were burnt, who saw their animals being killed, and who had been separated from their families. One of the most moving moments was seeing the long list of lost children, aged two to 18, posted outside the International Committee of the Red Cross building.
The refugees are in a state of shock and suffering from acute anxiety. Those are symptoms of the first stage of being terrorised, and become apparent particularly when one speaks to the old men in the camps or in host families—halfway through a logical conversation, tears start streaming down their faces. That happened with almost everyone with whom I spoke in the camps. At some point in the conversation, they cried uncontrollably. It was not sobbing, but uncontrollable tears.
We have been told by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture that the refugees are suffering acute anxiety, and that they need psychosocial help and mental health counselling and support. They need that help now, and they need it to be delivered in an organised and co-ordinated manner. The refugees will continue to suffer anxiety, panic attacks and flashbacks, and possibly ill health.
We have already heard about the camps destabilising economic and social effects in Macedonia. The camps that we visited were surrounded by fences. The Macedonian authorities tried to keep the camps as far away as possible from the rest of the population. People are not allowed at will out of the camps, which are quite tense places. Because of the volatility of the situation in Macedonia and the effects of the refugee influx on the local population, the Macedonian Government move most refugee convoys and equipment at night.
If mental health support is not provided to refugees now, there will be many and various severe consequences. Organisations such as the Red Cross, the World Health Organisation and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture have stated that the consequences of not providing help now will be manifested in several ways, such as in violent outbursts. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) was perhaps right to say that there are violent outbursts in the camps; but many of those may be caused by pent-up trauma and lack of psychological support.

Dr. Tonge: I appreciate the hon. Lady's comments, and certainly it would be valuable for people to receive such support and counselling. However, does she not think that, in times like these, the closeness of people's own families and communities is of overriding importance and would

provide far more support to them? The Albanian Government's suggestion of trying to gather people in camps into their natural communities, reflecting the old villages of Kosovo, is therefore a very good one.

Ms Kingham: I agree partly with the hon. Lady's comments. However, organisations that have worked with victims of oppression, torture and rape and with those who have witnessed tragic events have made it clear that close family members are not always those who are able to provide the necessary support to victims—who need long-term counselling by external counsellors and advisers—and that families break down if the right support is not available. Families cannot always provide their members with the support they need.
If victims cannot speak to an external counsellor and gain that support, the possible eventual consequences are tension within the family, domestic violence and outbreaks of—sometimes physical—abuse of children, all of which lead not only to dysfunctional families but to dysfunctional communities and communities in crisis.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: My hon. Friend is developing an important and interesting argument. She is obviously aware of the work of the Medical Foundation, which agrees that someone other than a family member is often needed. A Muslim woman who has been raped might find it very difficult to talk to someone whom she knows. Being in a camp surrounded by armed guards is similar to detention. My hon. Friend may be aware of the work of Dr Christina Pourgourides on the mental health effects of detention on asylum seekers in this country, who are held in much better conditions than those in the camps in Macedonia.

Ms Kingham: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I have spoken to several organisations in the camps, including the UNHCR and the Red Cross. The World Health Organisation is considering providing services for psychological support. However, there is a clear lack of co-ordination. In Bosnia, support was not provided in the early stages of humanitarian assistance and it was not followed through. Dozens of small non-governmental organisations turned up in Bosnia to give quick-fix counselling and psychological support and then pulled out. Unfortunately, that sometimes did more harm than good. The effort was not sustained and people did not get the support that they needed.
The Medical Foundation and others have pointed out to me that, after six months, refugees go to the intermediate phase of mental crisis, when self-denial is no longer possible and the true force of the effects of the terror that they have experienced will come out. It is crucial that they have long-term support at that time. They will also need support when they return to their homes in Kosovo. It will be no utopia. Their homes will be devastated and their villages will be burned. They will face yet another phase of crisis.
Support for the refugees is necessary immediately, after six months and on their return home. There must be an integrated programme in the humanitarian assistance effort to ensure that they are given support from the beginning until they return home. I do not feel reassured that such help is being provided. The consequences of that could be grim. There could be outbreaks of violence in


the camps, families may break down, communities will not be functional and, when people return home, they will not be able to rebuild their lives in the way that they need.
I urge the Government to ask the UNHCR to ensure that a programme of care for the refugees is bolted into the planning for the coming months. It is not an optional extra. There is no point in feeding people and giving them shelter and medical care if we end up with appalling scenes such as the horrible picture that I am sure that we all remember emblazoned over the front of the newspapers during the Bosnia crisis featuring a 19-year-old girl who had been raped and had hanged herself from a tree because she could no longer live with the trauma and felt that she had nobody to turn to.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask a question of which I have given the Department notice? It concerns the nuclear power station at Kosledoj in Bulgaria, which, before the crisis, was perhaps the most worrying of the eastern bloc nuclear power stations. There is a real problem of oil pollution in the Danube, which could foul up the coolant system. If the coolant system were injured in any way, there could be a catastrophe along Chernobyl lines. I am not saying that that would happen, but it is possible. I have contacted Scottish Nuclear and British Energy about the issue and told the Department about my worries. There is a similar problem with the Romanian Cernavoda No. 1 power station.
The environmental consequences of bombing know no borders. Large quantities of chlorine and other noxious gases have been released into the air after the bombing of the refinery and petrochemical plant at Pancevo. I understand that the rain that has fallen in the past few days on Pancevo, Novi Sad and Belgrade, as well as over the Hungarian border, is grey-black. That has been detected by ordinary people striving to save water and by meteorologists and other experts. That water will seep into the soil and poison the crops. The Danube and the Sava are so polluted that people are forbidden to eat fish from them. The destroyed chemical plants and the oil storage drums have leaked into the rivers. Fertiliser and chemical plants have been spawning black fumes.
I make a plea to the Government to reconsider yet again whether the strategy of bombing helps this awful situation. Sometimes, doing the right thing may involve loss of face, but history will judge us kindly for choosing such an option. There is still scope for diplomatic activity to negotiate a settlement under the auspices of the United Nations to protect the people of Kosovo and elsewhere. We have to stop our policy of capitulation or else.
After the conflict with NATO is over, Yugoslavia and the area around it will depend on imported oil and will be unable to rebuild its industrial sector, let alone bridges, without huge amounts of aid from the countries that are now bombing it. Can we not reconsider the policy of bombing?

Mr. Gary Streeter: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for initiating this important debate and to the members of the Select Committee, who have brought back their testimony of what they have seen in the past few days of this dreadful crisis. The House

would also be wise to listen carefully to the words of warning from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). Hon. Members are entitled to speak about different aspects of the issue in this Chamber.
I am sure that many hon. Members feel, as I do, that it is almost too painful to open a newspaper, turn on the television or listen to the radio, only to hear yet more distressing tales of what is going on in Kosovo. The suffering of the Kosovar Albanians is distressing for us all. Perhaps it is not easy to focus on anything more than supporting the refugees through the crisis and bringing the conflict to a successful conclusion so that peace and security can be established in the region once again and people can go back to their homes and begin to rebuild their lives, which is what they want.
However, we would fail the people of the region if, in addition to soft hearts, we did not also bring clear minds to the debate. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie is right to cause us to look at the wider implications for neighbouring states and the longer-term implications for the region. The decisions that we make in the west continue to have a significant effect on the people of the region.
I intend to be brief, because I want the Minister to have as long as possible to answer as many points as he can. However, it is worth repeating what we all believe: that the responsibility for the situation lies with President Milosevic and a tiny minority of Serb enforcers. He is a brutal dictator who has no part to play in the Europe of the 21st century. I have a friend living in Belgrade who still e-mails me about once a week. He is an intelligent and reasonable man, but he cannot understand what NATO is doing and does not believe that ethnic cleansing is taking place in Kosovo. That shows the scale of the challenge that the Serbian people will face when all this is over to come to terms with the reality of what has happened in their country.
We will always support our troops in action overseas. We pay tribute again to their courage and dedication. However, I must take this opportunity to make it clear again that when the armed conflict finally comes to an end, we shall require some answers to the many searching questions that we have asked about how we found ourselves in this position. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a similar point. It is in the interests of the region that lessons should be learned from the situation. It will be necessary to revisit the failure of the diplomatic efforts of the past two years. We shall have to examine the consequences of so many threats but so little action in 1998. We must examine carefully the lack of preparedness of the relevant agencies in terms of coping with an exodus of refugees that was breathtaking, but inevitable once air strikes started. We will be right to probe the initial lack of co-ordination between NATO, the EU and the UN.
I feel strongly—perhaps the Minister will not agree—that we should consider whether some of the intergalactic rhetoric of some Government Ministers in the past few weeks has helped or hindered the cause. Many lessons must be learned from the conflict, and it is our job, as Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, to try to make sure that that happens. Having started down the road, there is no alternative but to press on to a successful conclusion for the people of Kosovo, NATO and the region as a whole.


There are implications for neighbouring states. Albania and Macedonia are poor and have internal problems of their own, and they have been all but overwhelmed by the influx of refugees. The testimony that we have heard today makes that point eloquently. The strains on their social structures and economies are significant.
There has been a severe impact on the economies of other neighbouring states such as Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania as a result of the loss of transport routes through Serbia for exports and the lack of investor confidence in the region generally. I was in Kosovo in December and in Bosnia earlier in the year. The region is staggeringly beautiful, but it is not hard to see that tourism this year is unlikely to be substantial. Milosevic has many victims, not all of whom live in Kosovo.
Our response must be in the short, medium and long term. However, our commitment to the region must be absolute. This is Europe; we have a strategic national interest in long-term European stability. I believe that we have a moral responsibility also to see the matter through.
In the short term, we must pay the costs of supporting the refugees in the region. We must be both compassionate and efficient. The magnificent record- breaking response of the great British public—in giving over £30 million to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal—demonstrates how the crisis has been taken to the hearts of the people of this country.
I welcome the increase in our aid from £20 million to —40 million, announced by the Prime Minister on Monday. It would be helpful if the Minister could specify where that money is coming from. Which part of the Government's coffers will it be taken from? What specific use will be made of the money? What are the implications for the balance of the Department's budget? I agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that the money should come out of Treasury contingencies, rather than those of the Department for International Development.
I welcome the decision by the EU to make £168 million available to aid agencies and to the Governments of Macedonia, of Montenegro and of Albania. It is vital that we support those Governments at this time. However, I am concerned at the reports, to which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie alluded, that the money is still not getting through on the ground. I did not understand the reference to the books of Macedonia not being in order, and I hope that the Minister will clarify that matter. What must be done to get the money through? How much longer will the Macedonian Government be kept waiting for this vital aid? Will the Minister keep an eye on the Brussels money to ensure that it is not bogged down by long-term Brussels red tape, as so often has happened in the past?
The Home Secretary announced yesterday that this country will take 1,000 refugees per week. Before that, the Government's clear policy had been to provide for the refugees on the ground. Can the Minister explain the change of policy? Does he agree that such an important policy change should have been made by a statement to the House of Commons? Can he confirm that there will be such a statement by the Home Secretary this afternoon, so that we can question him on the matter? It will

be difficult to decide on the proper response to the announcement until we know the detailed facts and figures.
It remains our preference to care for people in the region, so that they can go back to their homes as soon as possible, as that is what they want. We look forward to a statement in the House this afternoon so that we can make a proper assessment of the decision.
In the medium term, it is vital that aid for the region is co-ordinated. People are talking about a Marshall plan, and we would support a significant reconstruction plan for the region. It is in the long-term interests of all of us that European stability is achieved. Obviously, the EU has a vital role, and perhaps the Minister can say a little about its plans.
In the long term—with the goal being the stability of the region—I feel strongly that the EU has an historic opportunity to underpin long-term stability by proceeding with enlargement at a realistic and reasonable pace. Enlargement can bring to the region the benefits of stable democracies, market-based economies, strong, civil societies and respect for the rule of law and human rights; perhaps for the first time in history. Will the Minister confirm the Government's commitment to that process?
Perhaps some lateral thinking is required by the EU to create some special status for some of those countries that clearly are not ready—or anything like ready—for accession to the EU. That would help those countries through the next few years as they prepare for accession. Does he agree that a wider Europe, rather than a deeper Europe, will bring peace, stability and ultimately prosperity to that needy region?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I am deeply indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for initiating this debate, which the Government welcome. In the time that the House has generously provided for me, I will try to provide answers to all the questions. If I am unable to do so, I undertake that either I or one of my colleagues from another Department will write to the hon. Members concerned. That will include the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in relation to nuclear power plants. I should have liked to answer that question but, in the time available, I was unable to do so. I can assure my hon. Friend that someone will write to him.
As the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) rightly said, we are facing the most acute crisis in Europe since 1945. More than 1 million people have been evicted from their homes. Thousands have been killed, and hundreds of women raped. I am surprised that anyone has questioned those figures, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) and to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) for confirming them. Thousands of people have been separated from their families.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that, for more than a year, we tried to find a diplomatic solution. We called on Milosevic to stop attacking and persecuting his own people. He refused. At the end of the day, we had a duty to act to help those people who were being persecuted, killed and maimed. We have acted on


that duty, and none of us in the Government apologises for that. The scale of the resulting crisis is clear, but let there be no doubt in the House; Milosevic is responsible for the crisis and the suffering.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that this is a timely debate. As he and others have said, a donors' conference is taking place today in Paris, considering specifically the needs of Macedonia. I expect that there will be a similar conference on Albania soon.
The UK has an important role in the conference, as well as in the medium and long-term support for the region. However, that is along with other donors. We must not forget that, as well as the bilateral donors, the EU and the international financial institutions have a responsibility. The UK should not take it all upon ourselves in dealing with the problem. At the donors' conference, we will pledge a further £5 million from the know-how fund to improve the administration within Macedonia and to make the country more able to cope with the problems to which the hon. Member for South-West Devon referred.

Mr. Gerrard: We all appreciate that aid is needed and, after the conference, we may have a clearer idea of the scale of the money to be given. However, I am concerned about the comparison of what is being given with the costs. The Home Office has said that this country will spend more than £600 million this year on support for asylum seekers; and that is supporting maybe 50,000 people. When we compare that figure with the problems in Macedonia and Albania, it suggests the scale of aid that might be needed.

Mr. Foulkes: I will deal with that point, but it is important to deal first with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and others about our position on taking in refugees. There has been some misunderstanding of the Government's position. There has been no policy change. Not having a quota does not mean an unwillingness to take refugees; indeed, quotas can easily be used as an upper limit.
We have said all along that the vast majority of refugees should remain in the region, as is their own wish—they said that to members of the Select Committee and to the Prime Minister—ready to return when the NATO campaign has succeeded. We in Britain have given more help on the ground than most other countries. We recognise that some refugees need to be airlifted out: especially the vulnerable, those with particular medical conditions and those with family connections in the United Kingdom. Above all, only those who want to come here must be brought; it must be voluntary. We were concerned that some people were being shipped out against their will. That certainly must not happen.
That humanitarian response has always been our intention. Two planes came in last week, to Leeds-Bradford airport and to East Midlands airport. I want to thank all those involved in receiving the refugees, including the Refugee Council, local authorities and local Members of Parliament. We are now able to increase the pace of our humanitarian response because the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration have been able to process more requests.
Departments, local authorities and voluntary organisations are now ready to receive more people, so we can go up from two planes a week to four a week, and ultimately one a day over the next few weeks.

Mr. Alan Clark: If, as is proper, the Minister is consulting local authorities and others and getting their consent, will he not also feel obliged, for reasons of both practicality and honour, to assure those authorities that a proper screening process will be set in train, to prevent infiltration by criminal elements and by those who, as I have warned the House, will be intimidating refugees, and whom their own people will obviously be reluctant to reveal?

Mr. Foulkes: A Home Office team will go to the region—this weekend, I expect—to help with the screening, working with the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration.
Those who come will get exceptional leave to stay and will be able to receive social security and to work. The next two plane loads will arrive at Prestwick airport on Sunday and will then go to Clydebank and to Glasgow.
Let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley that the fact that Britain was not on the list at the beginning and had to be added in biro was an administrative oversight on the ground in Macedonia—I apportion no blame—which, I am glad to say, has now been rectified.
I was asked about the level of assistance that we are giving. The Prime Minister announced a further £20 million, which several hon. Members have welcomed today, bringing the total since the conflict started to £40 million. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that we are willing to consider further requests for funds as the need arises.
I can confirm for the hon. Members for Richmond Park and for South-West Devon that the latest funds do not come out of my Department's budget. We are not taking away help that should rightly continue to go to those in poverty in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. We try to ensure that the help that we give on the ground helps host families and the host countries as much as possible.
I join the hon. Member for South-West Devon in congratulating the British people on contributing £28 million through the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. That, in a matter of days, is a phenomenal response, and shows their concern for the plight of refugees; indeed, they have contributed to other appeals, too. I know that many people want to give medicine or gifts, but money is what is needed. They would do better to sell what they might otherwise give and raise money so that what is needed can be procured locally, wherever possible.
We have an unparalleled record of providing help on the ground. We have flown 40 airlifts so far, providing tents, blankets, food, and medical and emergency supplies, with more on the way. I am proud to say, in this Red Cross week, that we have given £2.5 million to the Red Cross for relief and for family tracing, to get families back together. Scores of families have already been reunited, and more will be.
We are providing an airport logistics cell at Tirana, an aircraft handling package at Skopje, and a convoy of five trucks. We have helped to set up two camps in Macedonia


and we are setting one up in Albania. We are establishing contingency stockpiles of food, tents and blankets. There are scores of Department for International Development staff on the ground.
We are providing funds to the World Food Programme, to UNICEF and to international voluntary organisations. We are helping with radio programmes to give information to the refugees and providing free radios. Hon. Members can be proud of what the Government are doing in this very difficult situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie urged us to give additional help to the UNHCR. There have been some criticisms of the UNHCR, and Mrs. Ogata, its head, has accepted that it is not perfect, but we should recognise that we are dealing with an unprecedented exodus. I can confirm today that, following the Prime Minister's visit, substantial further funds will be made available for the UNHCR. He hopes to talk to Mrs. Ogata about that. We are keen to help the organisation to overcome any weaknesses that have been identified and to provide the psychosocial help to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester referred.
I have been asked about European Union funds. Our officials are today working on a specific remit to unblock the 25 million euros for Macedonia. It is important to remove the blockage as quickly as possible. I am sure that the hon. Member for South-West Devon will be pleased that the Adam Smith Institute is providing the help to try to get the Macedonian Government's books in some kind of order.
We recognise that the conflict affects not only Macedonia and Albania but the other front-line states, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon said. We recognise the need for long-term assistance, and we have already started discussions on that. The countries concerned are European countries and need to be integrated into the wider European and global framework, with political and economic stability in the long term. Membership of European and international organisations is vital to that end.
In the longer term, it is important to have a stability pact in south-east Europe. Proposals for such a pact will be discussed at a meeting of senior officials in Bonn on 27 May.
No one, and least of all Milosevic, should be in any doubt that we will continue our campaign until the Serb troops are withdrawn, there is an international force in place and the Kosovars can return in safety to rebuild their shattered lives. Meanwhile, we will continue to play our full part in helping the refugees on the ground and in the United Kingdom. They want NATO to succeed, above all, as they want to return to their homes. We will continue until they can do so in safety.

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The next debate is on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: If, like me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have had to practise saying "encephalopathies", you did extremely well.
The purpose of this debate is not to discuss the general issue of the spread of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, but to raise a particular case in which the rules to prevent it have been misapplied.
My constituent, Mr. R. Lennox of R. Lennox and Son of Layer de la Haye in my constituency, agreed to the sale of three loads of lambs to an Italian company, ILCO, in June 1997. I should say at the outset that I dislike the trade in live animals, and would much prefer United Kingdom-reared stock to be slaughtered before export—but that is another subject for debate and not one that I intend to raise now. My duty is to make representations on behalf of my constituent, who has suffered an injustice. Incidentally, not only Mr. Lennox but everyone in the supply chain has suffered—including those on hill farms in north Wales, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who cannot be present but has written to me about the problem.
The livestock were shipped on 4 July 1997 with all appropriate health records and veterinary certificates, as required by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They arrived in Italy on 7 July, and a certificate was issued confirming that their arrival in good condition. Mr. Lennox thereafter expected payment of £57,000.
As background, to cut a long story short, the Italian Government, acting under an ordinance dated 24 December 1996 on the prevention of the spread of TSEs, claimed that the MAFF certification was inadequate, and refused to accept the import of the lambs.
Incidentally, a similar shipment of lambs, which was sent to southern Italy, was accepted until the Rome branch of the Italian veterinary service contacted its representatives in the south. By that time, the consignment had been paid for. To be consistent, the Italian Government should have impounded those sheep, but the sheep had mysteriously disappeared. That consignment was paid for and disappeared, but Mr. Lennox's lambs have never been paid for.
After several days of exchanged faxes, during which time the condition of the lambs deteriorated, all 1,700 were slaughtered for non-food use on the order of the Italian Government. During that exchange, the UK Government made it clear that they considered that the Italian Government were acting illegally. On 14 July, Liana Smith, assistant to the first secretary at the British embassy in Rome, faxed the Italian Ministry of Health, apparently on the instruction of MAFF, stating that MAFF did not accept that the ministerial ordinance of 24 December 1996 was a lawful restriction on trade. Moreover, the fax made it clear that MAFF would write to the European Commission asking it to take legal action against the Italian Government.
In summary, Mr. Lennox is owed £57,000, but ILCO is refusing to pay. Mr. Lennox has therefore issued proceedings in the High Court, but ILCO has filed a


defence, which, in effect, blames the Italian Government for what occurred. The substance of the High Court action is not the subject of this debate. I question the UK Government's conduct in this matter, which is not sub judice. What have the Government done to help to remedy the loss suffered by UK businesses—notably that of my constituent—as a result of the Italian Government's legal action?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Donoughue, wrote to me on 20 July last year, saying that the Italian authorities were shortly to amend their ordinance. He confidently predicted:
Mr. Lennox will be in a stronger position with regard to pursuing the matter of compensation from the Italian authorities once the Commission has given an opinion on these legal matters.
A new ordinance was brought into force by the Italian Government on 24 August 1998, which replaces the previous one and conforms with Italy's treaty obligations. According to Lord Donoughue, Mr. Lennox is now in that "stronger position" to which his letter referred.
In February, I again wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary, asking his Department to raise the issue with its counterparts in the Italian Government, and to press them to ensure that compensation is paid. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food himself replied. Although he acknowledged that the Government had made representations on the illegality of the now-defunct ordinance, he refused to assist my constituent. The purpose of this debate is simply to ask why.
My constituent has lost a large sum of money through the illegal actions of another Government. Why do the UK Government refuse to help to rectify that injustice? It has had a devastating effect on the viability of Mr. Lennox's business. He has no working capital; he cannot run his business. The suppliers whom he owes in turn are threatening bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. Lennox has had to put his farm on the market. Is that what the Government want?
The High Court action against ILCO will take a considerable time to resolve and may finish up in the European Court of Justice, which would take years. The sum in question is dwarfed by the legal costs. Is such a route the only recourse open to British businesses when other Governments flout their obligations under the single market, or does the Minister seriously expect an ordinary Essex farmer to be able to sue the Italian Government without any support from his own Government?
I urge the Government to write to the Italian Government, pressing them to take action to ensure that compensation is paid to Mr. Lennox, and thereby to his suppliers. If that is refused, the UK Government should seek meetings on the matter, ultimately at ministerial level and in the Council of Ministers, involving the Commission, until it is resolved. At the same time, the Government should take a policy decision in support of Mr. Lennox's legal action, with such financial and other help as may be necessary.
The Government cannot dismiss this matter as though it were a private contractual dispute, as the Minister did in his letter of 18 February. This is a matter between Governments. Failure to act one way or the other will mean that the Government are opting for the interests of their political horse trading, rather than for the real trade for which European Community rules were ostensibly established.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on finding a means by which to describe on the Floor of the House his constituent's important case and the circumstances in which he finds himself. As the hon. Gentleman knows from our discussion a few minutes ago, I was hitherto unaware of the specific nature of the issue. In fact, I have come to this debate armed with 1.5 in of briefing material on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies—one can say it if one does not think about it, by the way—in order to explain what is happening in respect of cattle and sheep. To reply with such information would be beyond the bounds of the subject that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and discourteous to him.
I recall the issue of what I call Italian sheep from the middle of 1997, just after we came into government. I remember seeing notes about delays concerning exports of sheep to Italy over which there was an argument. As the hon. Member for North Essex said, he has corresponded with two of my colleagues—Lord Donoughue and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The way in which Mr. Lennox has been treated is very unfair. I do not know how many similar cases there are, although the hon. Gentleman referred to the disappearance of a consignment following payment. As the Government, we took a view that the Italians' actions were unlawful, and made very strong representations to them. The Italians changed their law in December 1996. That went well beyond the Community rules at the time. Indeed, the chief veterinary officer of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food complained to the Italians about it.
The way in which the matter has been left is clearly unsatisfactory. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that further inquiries about this case will be made. I will see whether anything can be done. It does not make sense that a fellow European Union member state can bring in an illegal order that causes British companies to suffer. I suspect that things would be different were matters the other way around. I do not know of other cases, but, although I cannot state that the Government will pay the bill or initiate court action against the Italian Government, the events that the hon. Gentleman described send an unsatisfactory signal to other traders, in all walks of life, who could find themselves in the same difficulties as Mr. Lennox.
Clearly, the Government cannot intervene in the High Court proceedings against the importer of the sheep into Italy. It would not be satisfactory for me simply to tell the hon. Gentleman that we succeeded in persuading the Italian Government to withdraw the relevant order last August, and to imply that the problem has been solved for the future. Mr. Lennox has been left high and dry: although I do not know what the answer is, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's collective view is that the case is one of very unfair treatment of a British trader by another EU member state, which has led to court action.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's caveat about the trade involved, but in fact the nature of the trade is irrelevant. It does not matter whether sheep or car radios were involved: a British exporter has suffered because of the illegal activities of another EU member state Government.


I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry will look into the matter further. If need be, I shall advise my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make the strongest possible representations to the Italian Government and indeed to raise the matter face-to-face with them. I shall, of course, report back to the hon. Gentleman on the progress being made.

Mr. Jenkin: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to say that I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I undertake to furnish whatever additional information might be relevant. However, I fear that more than just the Ministry will be involved, as this is a matter between Governments.
Given the embarrassment that the matter has caused between two member states, some members of the Administration—such individuals are present in all Administrations—will wish to bury the issue and hope that it drifts into the past without becoming a stone in the shoe in the relationship between the British and Italian Governments. I wish to re-emphasise the devastating effect that the problem is having on the livelihoods of Mr. Lennox and his family, and on the north Wales farmers who are affected by it.
It is potentially a tragic case, but it is also unnecessary. I urge the Government, as a matter of policy, to consider giving financial assistance to companies and individuals who have been wronged in the way that I described. The Government should assist in the development of the EU law, because we are in a grey area. If we are to be good Europeans—as I believe that we should—we should encourage speedy mechanisms for the resolution of such disputes. Establishing the necessary legal precedents will require far more impetus than can be provided by a small farmer in Essex taking on the whole EU machinery himself.
I hope that the Minister of State will take action on the policy issues involved around Whitehall and ensure that those who would prefer inconvenient and embarrassing problems such as this simply to go away will not prevail.

Mr. Rooker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the circumstances that he envisaged as a possibility will not arise. There is a policy issue at stake, and I will ensure that it is addressed. I shall report back to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

Patrick Finucane

Mr. John McDonnell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for the additional time that has become available for this debate.
On 12 February 1989, two masked men entered the home of Patrick Finucane and shot him 14 times. He died in front of his three children. His wife Geraldine was also injured, and the Ulster Freedom Fighters claimed responsibility for his murder. It was another brutal atrocity in the saga of killings and violence that has scarred the Six Counties of Northern Ireland for the past 30 years.
However, what is different about Patrick' s murder is that a catalogue of evidence has been amassed that points towards its being the result of collusion between British security and intelligence forces and loyalist terrorist organisations.
The background to the murder appeared to be straightforward. Patrick Finucane was born in 1949, in the Falls road in Belfast. He came from within the Six Counties' Catholic and nationalist tradition. After his family were forced out of their home by loyalists at the start of the troubles, he became a student at Trinity college, Dublin. After completing his degree, he returned to Belfast to study law and eventually qualified as a solicitor. He commenced his practice in 1979.
As a solicitor, he represented Catholic and Protestant alike. However, there is no doubt that he gained a reputation for his highly professional competence in representing members of the nationalist community seeking protection in law from human rights abuses; nor is there any doubt that Patrick and fellow lawyers representing clients seeking to secure their rights in law were resented by certain groups among the authorities.
Less than four weeks before Patrick's murder, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), then an Under-Secretary at the Home Office, said that, in Northern Ireland, there were "a number of solicitors" who were "unduly sympathetic" to the cause of the IRA. He added that that statement was made on the basis of "advice" and "guidance" from people "dealing with the matters".
I do not say this lightly, but I know of no more dangerous a statement to the House from a Minister of the Crown. The statement, in effect, was a declaration to some elements in the loyalist organisations that human rights lawyers in Northern Ireland were legitimate targets. For Patrick Finucane, it was the pronouncement of a sentence of death.
Of course, the statement outraged the nationalist community and the legal profession in Northern Ireland. On the very best interpretation, it was an act of such reckless misjudgment that it put in danger the lives and safety of many brave men and women who were upholding the best traditions of the legal profession in the most adverse conditions.
However, the charges of British state collusion in the murder of Patrick Finucane do not rest on the culpability of a Minister. They rest on a series of disclosures about the British security forces in Northern Ireland that have come to light in recent years.


The first such disclosure came with the arrest and conviction of Brian Nelson for conspiracy to murder in the early 1990s, following an inquiry by John Stevens, a Metropolitan police officer. John Stevens was brought into Northern Ireland by the then Government to investigate the release to loyalist paramilitaries of Royal Ulster Constabulary files on supposed suspects, and following the outcry after the murder of Loughlin Maginn.
A summary of the report by Mr. Stevens was released in May 1990, but the full report has never been published. In fact, it is a near-miracle that the report was completed at all. A fire gutted the office of the investigation team, which was sited in heavily guarded RUC barracks outside Carrickfergus. All the files that Stevens had accumulated relating to Brian Nelson were destroyed. Although the Stevens team later stated that they had arranged for the back-up storage of some material before the fire, I believe that not all the files have been fully identified.
Stevens discovered that military intelligence agents were being used in the Ulster Defence Association. Senior British Army officers at first denied that the Army ran any agents at all, but for the first four months of the inquiry they concealed 1,100 documents from the inquiry team. They handed them over only when Brian Nelson revealed their existence to the Stevens team. As a result of the inquiry, two Ulster Defence Regiment members were convicted in relation to the killing of Loughlin Maginn. However, no one was charged with conspiracy to murder—except Brian Nelson, whose central role in the wider picture as an agent of British intelligence was exposed.
The Stevens inquiry exposed Brian Nelson's role as an agent of British military intelligence. He was placed as a senior intelligence officer in the UDA. The Stevens inquiry did not look fully into collusion, as it was restricted to considering the leaking or release of RUC documents to terrorist squads.
Nelson described his role as a British military intelligence agent in his journal, which was exposed on BBC's "Panorama" in June 1992. The information contained in the journal was largely confirmed when classified Army files were brought to light by a journalist, John Ware, in an article in theNew Statesman in 1998. It is clear that Nelson served as a chief intelligence officer of the UDA. He infiltrated the UDA through the actions of the British security forces.
According to a British colonel—Colonel J—who gave evidence at Nelson's trial, the UDA had been persuaded to centralise its targeting of IRA suspects, as they were described, through Nelson. It was persuaded to concentrate on known IRA activists. John Ware, in the New Statesman, described how Nelson operated. He said that Nelson assisted the targeting of IRA activists by compiling personality cards—P cards, as they were called. Those cards listed the target's address, associates and identification details, and they included a photograph.
When a target was selected for assassination—often by Nelson himself—Nelson passed the P card to the hit squad. Nelson, however, often did not know precisely when the assassin would strike. From the moment he passed on the P card, he and the British security handlers had lost control of the exercise.
In the case of Patrick Finucane, Nelson was asked to gather information weeks before the murder. He informed British intelligence officers—his handlers—of the request

He passed a photograph of Patrick Finucane to a UDA member, Eric McKee, a few days before the killing. Loyalist sources claim that Nelson reconnoitred the Finucane home with the killers before the attack.
Despite the warning given by Brian Nelson to the British intelligence services, Patrick Finucane was not informed of the threat to his life. A similar and simultaneous threat against another prominent lawyer, Paddy McGrory, was not relayed until two months after Patrick Finucane's death. Nelson was never charged in connection with the killing. His claims have never been examined in open court. No one has been prosecuted for the murder of Patrick Finucane. No one has been charged in connection with the murder, but three men were charged with possession of the murder weapon.
According to Ed Maloney, a journalist, in The Sunday Tribune, the man who asked Nelson for the photograph of Pat Finucane, and who was subsequently taken to the Finucane home by Nelson, was the head of the UDA's murder gangs. That man served a sentence for possession of scores of leaked documents, along with four others. One of the four was the UDA leader, Tommy Lyttle. All were arrested by the Stevens inquiry team. As at the Nelson trial, a deal was struck preventing full details of collusion between British forces and loyalist murder gangs from coming out in open court.
The Stevens inquiry did not, unfortunately, interview Patrick Finucane's widow, his partner, Peter Madden of the Madden and Finucane legal team, or any of the clients to whom threats had been made against Patrick Finucane. Since the original Stevens investigation, there have been many calls for a further inquiry based on the examination of the available evidence by various bodies.
In April 1998, Param Cumaraswamy, the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, set out a special review of the Patrick Finucane murder in his report on Northern Ireland. He stated:
Although some pointed out that this was only one of hundreds of unresolved murders, the murder of Patrick Finucane is of a different nature. As a high profile lawyer who had tremendous success representing his clients, both before domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights, his murder had a chilling effect on the profession and further undermined public confidence in the judicial system. Solicitors informed the Special Rapporteur that the murder led them either to give up criminal practice entirely or to alter the manner in which they handled terrorist related cases. Thus, the defendant's right to counsel was compromised. It was also learnt that several lawyers armed themselves for self-defence and their houses were equipped with security devices.
Principle 17 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provides, 'where the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.' If it is true that Brian Nelson informed military intelligence of the UDA's intent to murder Patrick Finucane, as Nelson claims in his prison diary and which seems to be corroborated by the testimony of Colonel J at Nelson's trial, then the Government has violated its duty to safeguard Patrick Finucane. Further, this omission would constitute a violation of article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The outstanding questions surrounding the murder of Patrick Finucane demonstrate the need for an independent judicial inquiry. So long as this murder is unresolved, many in the community will continue to lack confidence in the ability of the Government to dispense justice in a fair and equitable manner.
The rapporteur also revealed that, before Patrick Finucane's murder, Patrick had received a number of death threats from RUC officers, mainly delivered


through his clients. One client, Brian Gillen, who received compensation for ill-treatment suffered while in detention, has testified that he was told by an RUC officer, following the filing of a habeas corpus petition by Patrick Finucane, that
it would be better if he were dead than defending the likes of you.
The RUC threatened to give details of the solicitor and his client to loyalist paramilitaries.
Following Patrick Finucane's defence of Gillen, other clients have testified, numerous death threats were made against him by the RUC. He is reported to have received threatening phone calls at home. On 5 January 1989, five weeks before his death, one client alleged that an RUC officer
informed me that my solicitor was working for the IRA, and would meet his end also … He asked me to give Mr. Finucane a message from him … He told me to tell him he is a thug in a suit, a person trying to let on he is doing his job and that he, like every other fenian… bastard, would meet his end.
In January 1999, Mr. Cumaraswamy reiterated his call for a public inquiry. In a further report, the UN rapporteur made clear his view that the Government might have misunderstood the reason for his call for an inquiry. His concern over the murder was over doubts about state collusion—that is, military or RUC collusion. In materials that he had seen, he said, there was at least prima facie evidence of such collusion.
Mr. Cumaraswamy reiterated his earlier call for a royal commission of inquiry into the murder. In his view, on behalf of the UN,
Only such an inquiry could finally lay to rest the lingering doubts about this brutal murder, which has had a chilling effect on the independence of the legal profession in Northern Ireland.
The Finucane family has submitted papers to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland listing further information on Patrick Finucane's murder. The Irish Government have examined those papers, and, according to David McKittrick in The Independent on Monday, in a letter to the British Government, enclosing documentary evidence, the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister said:
I believe the case for a public inquiry is compelling. The allegations serve to undermine confidence in the rule of law. In my view, they can only be answered with confidence — one way or the other—through the mechanism of a public inquiry.
The evidence is building, as is pressure for a public inquiry. There is support for the UN call for an independent judicial inquiry from, among others, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation of Human Rights, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the Committee on Administration of Justice, British Irish Rights Watch and the Law Society of England and Wales.
We are aware that John Stevens has reopened his inquiry and we welcome that, but there is a general view that confidence can be restored only by a full public inquiry. The breadth of the evidence of intelligence collusion between British forces, the RUC and loyalist terrorist squads in the murder of Patrick Finucane demands that sort of public inquiry, but the evidence goes further: it demonstrates that while he was an agent for military intelligence sources Brian Nelson played a role in the supply of arms from South Africa to loyalist

murder squads; that he informed his intelligence handlers two years in advance of the supply of the arms; and that, although there was a sweep to obtain those arms, only some were obtained by the security forces and others are being used even today by loyalist murder squads.
Our view is that all the allegations of collusion between the British state and loyalist murder squads warrant inquiry, but I am using today's debate to call for an inquiry specifically into the death of Patrick Finucane. We believe that the Stevens inquiry would be usefully supplemented by a public inquiry summoned by invoking the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1921, as we had in respect of the investigation of Bloody Sunday.
We all believe that peace requires confidence building. The nationalist community and all those who are searching for a just peace have been battered by the deaths of so many of those who stood up for human rights, including Patrick Finucane and, more recently, Rosemary Nelson. The Irish community in this country and in Ireland have been offended by last week's failure to prosecute anyone for the killing Diarmuid O'Neill and by the long-standing refusal to reach for truth in the case of Patrick Finucane by way of a full public inquiry. Today, I urge the Government to act, not only to secure prosecutions, but to ensure that we arrive at a full and thorough understanding of what happened to Patrick Finucane. If, as we suspect, his death came as a result of collusion between security forces and loyalist murder gangs, that should be exposed, because that exposure will enable us to build the confidence that we need for peace.
Just as a truth commission was established in South Africa, perhaps the search for peace in Northern Ireland will require the establishment of a series of truth commissions to investigate different cases and different issues that affect the whole community. We have appealed for all terrorist organisations to identify the location of the graves of all those who disappeared, so that their families know what happened to them and their minds can be put at rest. If the Lawrence inquiry taught us any lessons, it must be the prime importance of listening to the families of those who have been lost; that is the wish of the Finucane family.
I hope that the Minister will offer a constructive response to the debate. I have seen today's reports in The Independent that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is trying to secure the fullest possible inquiry into the case and that she seeks prosecutions of those who murdered Patrick Finucane. However, I hope that we have not closed our minds to the potential of a full public inquiry, for in that way we may be able to expose the range of collusion that went on.
Let me give one further example. The supply of arms from South Africa to loyalist groups increased the number of assassinations; that was one of the roles played by Brian Nelson. In the six years before the arrival of the South African arms, between 1982 and 1987, 71 people were killed by loyalist murder groups; in the following six years, between 1988 and 1994, 229 people were killed—an increase of more than 300 per cent. Yet British intelligence were given two years' notice of the supply of those arms by Brian Nelson. I believe that there was a degree of collusion involved in the murder of Patrick Finucane that must be exposed, and that doing so might expose a level of collusion that we never dared to expect from the British security services, serving in the name of the British Crown.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has spoken of a tragic event—the murder 10 years ago of Patrick Finucane in front of his family. As he says, a further police inquiry into the murder of Mr. Finucane was announced last week. I shall say more about the background to that investigation in a moment, but the point I need to stress is that I shall not be able to comment on the substance of the issues that are being investigated, as I have to ensure that I say or do nothing that would impede the police inquiry, or any possible future prosecutions. In addition, in relation to the murder, there are on-going civil proceedings in the courts in Northern Ireland, which severely limit how much the Government can say; and there is an on-going case in Strasbourg under the European convention on human rights. Because of that, my hon. Friend will understand why I have to be circumspect in my comments in this debate.
The Government unreservedly condemn the brutal murder of Mr. Finucane, and we are determined that all necessary steps should be taken to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. Certain allegations have been made against the security forces in relation to the murder; likewise, we are determined to ensure that all the allegations are fully and fairly investigated and are seen to be so. As I have mentioned, a police investigation into the murder and related issues is under way, but that does not mean that the Government have closed their mind on what additional action, if any, is necessary in relation to the case. All options remain open. Nothing has been ruled out.
It might be helpful if I were to outline in more detail the background to the recent developments in respect of the murder of Mr. Finucane.

Mr. McDonnell: When my right hon. Friend says that no option has been ruled out, he is explicitly stating that the option of holding a full public inquiry has not been ruled out at this stage.

Mr. Ingram: That is correct, and I shall stress that again later in my speech.
To return to the background of the case, Patrick Finucane, a Belfast solicitor, was murdered in February 1989. The murder was investigated by the police at the time and, although the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone for murder, three people were charged with and convicted of possession of one of the weapons used in the attack and received sentences of two, three and four years respectively. As my hon. Friend says, unease about the background to the murder has not gone away, and it has been the focus of an on-going campaign over the years.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Mr. Finucane's widow, Geraldine, on 12 February 1999 and took receipt of a document that contained alleged new evidence prepared by British Irish Rights Watch about the murder of Mr. Finucane. My right hon. Friend gave an assurance that the document would be examined fully, and that is now being done. The Irish Government have now written to us with their assessment of the document—an assessment that has now been widely published, although

it would have been inappropriate to discuss the content of that assessment during this debate. My right hon. Friend met Mrs. Finucane again this morning; she also plans to meet the Irish Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs to discuss the Irish Government's representation. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday:
I take the situation very, very seriously. I am determined that no option will be excluded. Be assured, I am not going to leave the issue alone… I am not going to let this drop.
Let me now explain the process involved in the examination of the material. After receiving the document, the Government sent it to the RUC and to Mr. John Stevens, assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, asking for their views on the significance of the material. Because the material contained allegations of criminal offences having taken place, we also passed it to the Law Officers. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in turn received a copy of the report from the Law Officers.
The Director wrote to the Chief Constable of the RUC on 16 March in regard to the report, asking the Chief Constable to inform him whether it contained facts and information in respect of offences alleged to have been committed against the law of Northern Ireland, which had not been the subject of investigation and report to him, whether by Mr. Stevens or any member of the RUC, and which required investigation by the police. The Director also asked to be informed whether the report contained additional facts and information in regard to offences alleged to have been committed against the law of Northern Ireland which had been the subject of investigation and report to him, whether by Mr. Stevens or any member of the RUC, and which required further investigation by the police.
I recognise that some have criticised the Government for referring the paper to the RUC and Mr. Stevens. However, in doing so, we were not only following up the most effective lines of inquiry to assess the material, but we were legally obliged—I want to stress this —to pass to the police any evidence of criminal offences having been committed. Practical and legal imperatives therefore required us to act in this way. The way in which the RUC then carries out its own criminal investigations is for the Chief Constable to decide, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to interfere in that process. That does not mean that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ruled out the option of an independent public inquiry.
As I stated earlier in response to an intervention, that option remains open. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is determined to keep developments under review and will not hesitate to act if she concludes that the public interest and the interests of justice require her to do so. For now, however, it is right that the possibility of bringing those responsible to justice in the courts should be pursued.
The Chief Constable announced on 19 March that the British Irish Rights Watch paper had been referred by him to Mr. Stevens for investigation. Mr. Stevens then made an announcement on 28 April about his remit. He said that he would be investigating the murder of Mr. Finucane and associated matters raised by the British Irish Rights Watch report and the report of the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Mr. Param Cumaraswamy.
In order to progress his investigation, Mr. Stevens has set up an independent team of investigators, with current and former officers from the Metropolitan police service


and the Northumbria constabulary. He has called for anyone who can provide information to get in touch. I reiterate and re-emphasise that call today. If people want this investigation brought to a successful conclusion, they should co-operate fully with those responsible for carrying out the investigation.
While there are no RUC officers on his team—

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister think that it would be better if Mrs. Finucane also spoke to Mr. Stevens?

Mr. Ingram: I think that I have made things clear. I have said that anyone who has any information—it is not for me to assess whether someone has information—or who thinks that he or she can help Mr. Stevens in his inquiry, from whatever quarter, should do so. That will help in bringing to justice those responsible for the murder.
I was about to comment on the fact that while there are no RUC officers on Mr. Stevens's team, Mr. Stevens explained that it would have access to RUC information and resources as necessary to support the investigation.
In September 1989, Mr. Stevens, then deputy chief constable of Cambridgeshire, had been appointed by the then RUC Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Annesley, to inquire into allegations of breaches of security by the security forces in Northern Ireland. Mr. Stevens's team had not previously investigated the murder of Mr. Finucane itself, but information emerging from the previous investigations had linked individuals involved in those investigations to the murder.
Mr. Stevens's first investigation had begun after the theft of photo-montages from a Belfast police station. It resulted in 43 convictions and more than 800 years of imprisonment for those convicted. The report of that investigation contained more than 100 recommendations for the handling of security documents and information. All were accepted and they have now been implemented. To quote from the published summary of Mr. Stevens's report, the analysis of the evidence
makes it clear that the passing of information to paramilitaries by security force members has been restricted to a small number of individuals. It is neither widespread nor institutionalised.

Mr. McDonnell: I would ask my right hon. Friend to take back to the Government and the Law Officers who would be involved in the decision on this matter the message that part of the restoration of confidence in the overall investigatory processes in Northern Ireland would be assisted by the publication of the full Stevens report rather than just the summary.

Mr. Ingram: That predates this Government taking office. In any event, the documents refer to highly sensitive intelligence material. If they had been put in the public domain, they could have put at risk the lives of those who are acting in the interests of us all in the defence of democracy. Very difficult decisions have to be taken by Governments in the pursuit of democracy and in the defence of it against determined paramilitary and terrorist forces. However, if there is some form of inquiry, public or otherwise—as I have said, nothing is ruled out—

it becomes a matter of deciding at that time what is published and what goes into the public domain. I am not at liberty at this stage to say that that should or could happen. It remains a matter for the authorities at that time.
In 1993, following further allegations that had been made, Mr. Stevens was again asked by the then Chief Constable to investigate further matters which related solely to the initial inquiry. Mr. Stevens's second report to the Chief Constable was considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, who concluded that the evidence was insufficient for any further prosecutions to be brought. As I have said, the fact that the new investigation has been established very much limits what I can say about the substance of the recent allegations surrounding the murder of Mr. Finucane. I hope that the current police investigation will leave us in a better position to assess what further action, if any, we need to take.
I emphasise again that no options have been ruled out. That means that a public inquiry has not been excluded as a possible outcome. It is important that every support and encouragement is given to the police in carrying out the current investigation to bring to justice those who murdered Mr. Finucane.

Mr. McDonnell: One of the issues raised in discussions about the potential for an inquiry is the nature of that inquiry. The United Nations rapporteur has made it clear that he would welcome a judicial inquiry. Are there any plans to meet the UN representatives to discuss the potential of an inquiry as an option, and the nature of the inquiry—for example, whether the inquiry should be judicial, whether it should have an international element or whether any other steps should be taken that would at least move the process on in reassuring the UN rapporteur that the Government have taken this matter seriously?

Mr. Ingram: I know of no plans at present to do so. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met Mr. Cumaraswamy. He was very satisfied with the way in which the Government were dealing with the issues that he raised at that time. I have probably said about three times that nothing has been ruled out. I do not think I can say that more clearly. Therefore, further meetings with those who have expressed an interest in this matter may prove beneficial if we move into that phase in dealing with the issue.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister says that nothing has been ruled out. As everyone in Northern Ireland knows, the Finucane family is a strong republican family. Mrs. Finucane has made it clear that she will not work with the RUC. She has now rejected the English police as well. She refuses to speak to Mr. Stevens. Has the Minister not destroyed Mr. Stevens's inquiry already by saying that nothing else is ruled out? There is no need to speak to Mr. Stevens now because the Minister has already said that he is going to go ahead beyond that.

Mr. Ingram: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to put words into my mouth. Clearly, we do not know what Mr. Stevens will report on. I think that it is appropriate, therefore, to say that nothing has been ruled out. It may lead to a requirement to proceed in the way that has been suggested during the debate or in another way, which would then be defined, based on what information was available.


The statement that Mr. Finucane's family are a well-known republican family does not justify the murder of a member of that family. When we put labels on people, we must be careful about the possible consequences.

Mr. Taylor: In no way am I saying that that is an excuse for a murder. I deplore all murders. I was nearly murdered myself, as the Minister may know. What I am saying is that the family are one of the strongest republican families in Northern Ireland, who despise all police, whether they are RUC or English police. They have now said that they will not co-operate with Mr. Stevens. By saying that he will look beyond to an independent inquiry, the Minister has cut away the credibility of the Stevens inquiry, and people will no longer co-operate with it.

Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A statement has been made in the House about a certain family despising the police, but no evidence has been presented in the Chamber. When statements were made about the Finucane family 10 years ago, Patrick Finucane's life was put at risk and he eventually lost it. I believe that we should caution right hon. and hon. Members to be careful with their words when we are dealing with such matters. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) should know that full well, with his wealth of experience.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair, but all hon. Members should take care about the language that they use in debates such as this.

Mr. Taylor: All I am saying is that Mrs. Finucane herself has said that she will not co-operate with Mr. Stevens.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman has indeed made his point, and I am glad that he was able to correct any false impression that may have arisen from the way in which he phrased his remarks. I am not suggesting that he set out to create a particular impression, but it is important to put on record that, in a democracy, the fact that someone has certain labels put on him and takes a view on the institutions of the state does not justify action by paramilitaries to murder any member of our society. We have a duty of care for all members of our society, irrespective of how they view that society. That is the strength of the democracy that we seek to uphold in the House.
Before that exchange, I was about to conclude my remarks. It is important that we give every support and encouragement to the police. The best way that anyone who has information can bring people to justice is to co-operate with the police. It does not undermine Mr. Stevens's inquiry one iota to say that we must consider the possible consequences of his report. It would be wrong to rule anything out, as we do not yet know the contents of his report.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for initiating the debate. It has allowed me the opportunity to put on record the thoroughness with which the issue has been tackled by the Government and the RUC. We owe that to the Finucane family and to the rule of law.

Sitting suspended.

Orange Badges

Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on a subject which, through their case work, affects a large number of hon. Members. I appreciate the Minister for Transport in London replying to the debate. I have consulted several disablement groups, and all were positive about and appreciative of the knowledge and understanding of their transport problems that she has shown.
The angle from which I shall approach this issue is in one sense narrow. I am concerned, as are most hon. Members, with cases that fall just outside the eligibility criteria, but I do not want to lose sight of the bigger picture as I discuss the specifics. Orange badges are important because access for disabled people is crucial for employment, for shopping and for living a normal life. Access means mobility—and mobility, for almost all of them, means a private car, because the public transport system has not yet adapted to the problems of disablement.
I believe that the regulations applying to buses and to taxis will not fully come into effect until 2017 and 2012 respectively. Even for disabled people who can reach access points, buses and taxis are not practical options. The private car is the key to access and mobility and, in the urban and suburban environments that I represent, that means access to parking, so the orange badge concept is absolutely crucial.
Although I shall discuss a particular aspect of this issue, I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little about the Government's broad approach to the orange badge scheme. It was reviewed in 1989—which led to changes being made in 1991—and again in 1996, specifically in relation to enforcement. Perhaps she will bring us up to date on the Government's thinking. To the best of my knowledge, the orange badge scheme has not been discussed in this Parliament; I may have been inadequately briefed, but that is my understanding.
Although I shall argue for some broadening of the eligibility criteria in one or two cases, I recognise the dilemma—the tension—in this whole problem; it was brought home strongly to me by the disablement groups. Some cases, such as those of which I am aware, fall just outside the eligibility rules. They are hard cases, and my instincts are to seek a widening of the scheme for the benefit of those individuals. However, I recognise that the authorities, the Government and the disablement organisations are concerned, above all, with the integrity of the scheme. That is an important objective in itself.
Fears have been expressed about the proliferation of badges, abuse of the scheme and the system falling into disrepute if it is widened too much. I understand and sympathise with those fears; I certainly do not want to propose anything that would undermine the integrity of the scheme and thereby affect the seriously disabled badge users who take full advantage of it.
As I move to a discussion of the specific categories that I want to raise, it may be useful to hit upon a few of the key trends, which bring the conflict between the broadening of the scheme and its integrity into sharper relief. The first trend, as the Minister well knows, is the

considerable increase in the number of badges. I tabled a parliamentary question to her a few weeks ago and the answer suggested that the number had increased from slightly under 1 million in 1989 to about 1.7 million.
I understand that that figure may now have reached 2 million, so it has doubled over a decade and a substantial number of vehicles—probably one in 10 of those on the road — have orange badge specification. My question, to which I do not know the answer, is whether that number is appropriate and whether research has been carried out into whether the disabled community as a whole is fully utilising the scheme.
My research suggests that about 4.5 million people are seriously physically disabled, and they obviously fall into the category of being eligible for the orange badge scheme, so slightly less than 50 per cent. of disabled people are covered. A lot of disabled people are old, live in rural areas or do not have cars, and they would not want to take advantage of the scheme. However, it would be useful to know whether the number of people taking up badges is appropriate, given the incidence of serious physical disability.
Some estimates of the number of disabled people go way beyond 4.5 million and it would be interesting to know whether sample surveys have been carried out in particular areas in respect of supply and demand for facilities for the disabled.
The second trend is abuse. I hear and read in the press apocryphal stories—and also real examples—of abuse of the scheme. I understand that a key objective must be the prevention of abuse and that any fresh look at eligibility criteria, if there is to be one, must not open the scheme to more abuse than already occurs.
I appreciate that abuse can occur in several ways. For example, general practitioners may be excessively liberal in their approach. It is difficult for doctors to say no, just as it is difficult for Members of Parliament to say no, when people ask for help. Perhaps the GP system is excessively liberal, but I find that difficult to believe as I have come across many cases of doctors refusing what seem to be plausible requests for orange badges.
Similarly, it is alleged that many local councils find it difficult to say no and award orange badges too freely. Again, from my experience, I find that a little difficult to believe —certainly of the area for which I am the Member of Parliament. The local authority is quite tough in its issuing policy and many cases of what seem, at first sight, to be unreasonable refusals come to me. Local citizens advice bureaux and other agencies—not only in my area, but in others—report how difficult it often is for those who fall within the eligibility criteria to get orange badges. There may be abuse, but it is certainly tempered by severe application of the rules elsewhere.
There may be abuse by disabled people themselves. We all hear stories of cars with orange badges pulling into parking bays and fit young people bounding out. No doubt some disabled people give their badges to relatives, but such incidents occur simply because many disabilities are episodic. People who have rheumatoid arthritis are more active in some periods than in others. I am sceptical about many of the claims of abuse, and I should be interested to know the Government's assessment of the scale of the problem and of how seriously we need to take it when we consider eligibility criteria.


The next broad trend that I want to sketch as background to particular cases is what appears to be—and what the disabled associations believe to be—a breakdown of the national scheme. Implementation of the disabled orange badge scheme locally appears, in some cases, to be resulting in different councils adopting radically different philosophies in their approach to it. We know that green badges are being issued in some local authority areas, for the benefit of local residents as opposed to orange badge holders from elsewhere. A tougher regime is being applied and the scheme has never applied at all in other areas, such as central London.
It is not immediately obvious to me why Kensington and Chelsea, for example, should be exempt from the scheme; its parking problems are quite serious, but so are those in my part of suburban London. I am sure that there are serious problems in Hampstead and Highgate as well. We need to consider why orange badge schemes apply in some areas but not in others, and why the rules are more severe in some areas than in others. That is the context in which I want to place the discussion about eligibility criteria.
This issue has been raised before in the House, but not in this Parliament. It was confronted in 1994 by the late John Watts, when he was Minister responsible, and representations on widening the criteria were made by hon. Members. I want to return to some of the issues that he raised.
There seem to be two broad problem areas and I have encountered both in my work as a constituency Member of Parliament. The first is that of temporarily disabled people. Some people might be described as temporarily disabled for what appear to be trivial reasons. For example, someone may have broken his leg in a skiing accident or injured himself playing football. Clearly, I would not want the scheme to be extended to cover such cases. However, there are other cases of temporary disablement, such as that of the woman in Twickenham who came to me for help. She had been walking along the road and a car had hit her and badly crushed her legs. She is still immobile after 21 months—she tried to walk with difficulty on crutches. She clearly falls within the criteria of substantial disablement, but because she is not permanently disabled the council would not issue her with an orange badge.
Another case is that of a woman with serious cancer. She is undergoing cancer therapy, which has the effect, as does the disease, of greatly weakening her so that she is not mobile and cannot walk 100 yd. She needs help, but cannot get it because that disease is curable and thus the disability is temporary. She does not fall within the disability criteria that the legislation requires. There are also people with arthritic conditions, who are waiting for hip replacement operations. That takes a long time. I am sure that the Government's health policy will improve that over time, but people wait for one or two years for hip replacement operations and, in the meantime, they cannot avail themselves of orange badges because they are only temporarily disabled.
Can the Minister do anything about those categories of people? One suggestion is to issue for one or two years orange badges that would be returnable thereafter. Clearly, the flexibility that local councils have would enable them to judge the severity of particular cases.
The second problem area is of a different kind. It covers people with diseases that clearly do not fit into the conventional definition of "physical disability". I do not know whether hon. Members are familiar with Crohn's disease, but it is a serious bowel disorder, such that people must have immediate access to public conveniences. It is a very distressing condition. Although it is not physical disablement in the normal sense, for those with severe manifestations of that illness easy access to parking is absolutely critical. Certain variants of epilepsy have similar implications.
If some of those diseases, which I believe are known to the Government—epilepsy, certain forms of mental illness, Crohn's disease and other bowel disorders—were encompassed in the scheme, we would be talking about large numbers of people and I understand why the authorities would not wish to widen the scheme indefinitely in that way. However, I should have thought that with an independent medical panel to hear appeals against local authority decisions and to look at cases flexibly, there might be some way of offering relief to those concerned.
Do the Government plan to address the question of the eligibility criteria? If they do, it must be done in a way that balances liberalisation against the danger of abuse. Do the Government propose to introduce the changes that were recommended in 1996 for a tougher enforcement code for orange badges; and if so, when? It was proposed that police officers and traffic wardens should be entitled to look at the identification of badge holders and that it should be mandatory for disabled people with orange badges to show them. That would be one way of cutting down on abuse while being flexible in other respects.
In a more general spirit, may I ask the Minister whether this whole area, which I accept is a vexed and difficult one because of the competing pressures, will be reviewed by the Government?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for affording the House the opportunity to debate an issue that is of particular importance to many disabled people.
As we acknowledged in our White Paper, for many severely disabled people the private car is the only viable transport option. However, its value would be greatly reduced, if not lost entirely, if disabled motorists were unable to park as close as possible to their destination. That is the primary purpose of the orange badge scheme, which enables people with severe mobility difficulties to park close to the places that they need or want to visit. Research demonstrates clearly that the mobility range of severely disabled people can be as little as 50 m, so even having to park 100 m or so away from one's workplace or from shops may make the journey extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible. The orange badge scheme is therefore vital in enabling the day-to-day activities that non-disabled people take for granted.
The scheme was first introduced in 1971 and, as the hon. Gentleman said, has been reviewed twice since then, the last review being completed in 1992. Eligibility for an orange badge is governed by the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations 1982, which were subject to wide public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.


To qualify for a badge a person must either be in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance or a war pensioner's mobility supplement; use a motor vehicle supplied by a Government health Department; be registered blind; have a severe disability in both upper limbs; regularly drive but be unable to turn a steering wheel by hand—even if that wheel is fitted with a steering knob; or have a permanent and substantial disability, which means that he or she cannot walk or has very considerable difficulty in walking. That last category is known as the "discretionary criteria".
It is clear from that list that eligibility is fairly tightly controlled, yet, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the number of badges issued over the past decade has risen dramatically, from 929,000 to 1.7 million—an increase of over 80 per cent. That total number bears no relation whatever to the proportion of the population that is disabled —some 10 to 12 per cent.; nor is the increase supported by a corresponding increase in the number of cars over the same period, although I recognise that not all badge holders are drivers.
That increase has prompted much concern, not least from our own statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the majority of whose members are disabled people. The committee recently submitted to me a report that recommends that we review the scope of the scheme with a view to tightening up the eligibility and revising the administration of the scheme.
DPTAC is particularly concerned about the application of the discretionary criteria. Its concern has been prompted by the fact that only a third of badges are issued "as of right" under the specific criteria that I outlined earlier. DPTAC's view is that the discretionary criteria are being applied too widely and should be restricted to people over the age of 65 years who would otherwise have qualified for the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance.
One of DPTAC's proposals is that an applicant's GP should be removed from direct involvement in the process. Many local authorities considering applications under the discretionary criteria consult the GP for further information. DPTAC's view is that there should be some form of independent assessment, either by another doctor or by a qualified health professional.
It is not just the issuing process that has come under scrutiny by DPTAC. Like those of us in the Department, it is also concerned about the apparent abuse of the system—another matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The badge design already has a photograph of the holder, but we have not yet been able to introduce the legislative changes to provide the enforcement authorities with the powers to inspect badges. That gives rise to scope for unscrupulous people to use a badge belonging to someone else—often an elderlym relative—and thus to enjoy the parking privileges that the scheme provides. That is unacceptable, and we have made it clear that we shall introduce the necessary legislation to allow inspection of badges as soon as parliamentary time allows.
DPTAC wants local authorities to strengthen their response to the abuse issue. It has recommended that local authorities should take a firm line with disabled people who knowingly allow their badge to be used by someone else, including withdrawing the badge altogether in cases of persistent abuse.
I recognise that DPTAC's recommendations have arisen from genuine concern about the effectiveness of the scheme. Although I share that concern, I am not as yet convinced of the need for a wholesale review of the scheme, as DPTAC has suggested. We have, however, undertaken a survey of issuing authorities to gather more information about how they are currently administering the scheme, particularly in relation to the discretionary criteria. I shall want to consider very carefully the information that is provided before deciding what, if any, further action is necessary.
Having set out the current position and explained our concerns and those of our advisers, I now turn to the particular concerns of the hon. Member for Twickenham, who has suggested that, far from narrowing eligibility, the scheme could perhaps be extended to cover people with temporary disabilities and those with specific conditions affecting their mobility.
I am very sympathetic to the problems faced by people with temporary disabilities, and I have certainly received other representations suggesting that the regulations should be relaxed to accommodate them. Currently, the regulations allow for badges to be issued only for a three-year period. We are not convinced that extending the scheme to allow badges to be issued for shorter periods would be in the best interests of the many thousands of severely disabled people for whom the scheme is an essential part of their mobility.
As I have said, there has already been a dramatic increase in the number of badges. Widening the eligibility criteria would inevitably mean a further rise in numbers. That would contribute to further traffic congestion in town centres, and could become self-defeating if it encouraged more local authorities to introduce local parking schemes that benefit only disabled people resident in their area. A number of local authorities have already introduced such schemes, which have attracted considerable criticism from disabled people residing outside those areas, as they are no longer able to access their town centres.
A significant rise in the number of badges would also make it more difficult for the police and traffic wardens to enforce the national scheme. The associations representing local highway authorities, whose members would have to operate the extended scheme, are opposed to the introduction of temporary badges.
From what I have said already about DPTAC, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that it, too, shares those concerns, and fears that a move to extend eligibility would lead to the erosion of the benefits for those who currently qualify. It has emphasised the importance of ensuring that the rules of the scheme restrict eligibility to the permanently disabled people who rely on a badge to have at least some of the freedom of movement that non-disabled people enjoy.
It has also been suggested that there could be a two-tier system with a different coloured badge for people with temporary disabilities. Again, that would be difficult for local authorities to administer, and would make enforcement even more difficult for the police and traffic wardens. A two-tier system would also run counter to our


decision to implement the European Commission's recommendation for a standard design of parking card for disabled people.
The new badge, which will be blue, will be introduced in this country from 1 January 2000, and all badges will have been replaced by 2003. It will be recognised by all other member states, and will provide disabled people with the assurance that while travelling anywhere in the European Union they will be able to enjoy the parking concessions that apply to disabled people in each member state. The recommendation does not affect the eligibility criteria or the parking privileges that operate in each member state.
Returning to the United Kingdom scheme, I am aware that some authorities issue badges to people awaiting surgery, such as a hip replacement—a point made by the hon. Gentleman. They do so on the basis that, until surgery has taken place, those people are, in effect, permanently disabled. I understand that approach, but, in my view, it would not be appropriate to set national rules in this area. The effect of such conditions vary considerably. Setting eligibility criteria around particular conditions regardless of their effects would increase the demand for parking spaces reserved for disabled people, and could disfranchise the most severely disabled people who rely on them.
One such condition, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which I know is of particular concern to him, is Crohn's disease. Although I recognise that the condition can be debilitating, those with the disease would be eligible for a badge only if their walking ability was also permanently, not just intermittently, affected. The issuing

authority is best placed to make that judgment—supported of course by medical evidence—and to decide whether the applicant qualifies for a badge.
I realise that this may seem harsh to those who are outside the scope of the scheme, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that for severely disabled people, who view the scheme as a lifeline, the main concern is to ensure that it does not become so over-subscribed as to minimise or even negate the benefits to them. They have already been disadvantaged in areas where local authorities have introduced their own badges in response to the increasing number of orange badge holders. They are anxious that that practice should not extend to other authorities.
The orange badge scheme is, without doubt, a key element in the independent mobility of many severely disabled people. Without the badge, many people would be unable to go about their day-to-day business. It is, therefore, vital that the eligibility criteria for an orange badge should be tightly controlled, and that issuing authorities take great care in processing applications to make sure that those who receive a badge are those who have the greatest need for one. I am afraid, therefore, that I can offer the hon. Gentleman little hope that the scheme will be widened to bring people with temporary disabilities within its remit; nor are we likely to specify specific conditions in the guidance that we issue to local authorities to assist them with their administration of the scheme.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cardiac Services

Mr. Win Griffiths: What plans he has for improving cardiac services in the NHS.[82085]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): A national service framework for coronary heart disease will be published later this year. Its implementation will make a significant contribution to improving the quality of care and treatment for patients with heart disease in Wales.
Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and, in particular, for the forthcoming publication of the national service framework. Will he convey to the Assembly—I am sure that someone quite close to him will be able to do that very well—the need to promote healthy life styles in Wales, and also the need to increase the resources available for cardiac care? Unfortunately, in Wales the problem is growing rather than diminishing.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend's point is well made. Cardiac services in Wales are indeed in great need, although heart disease is often preventable, and, given better life styles, we could do a great deal to reduce its incidence in Wales.
There is certainly some indication that demand is rising. I allocated an extra 1.4 million to the University Hospital of Wales last year so that cardiac surgery could continue there at its existing rate, but the Assembly will need to take advice from the newly formed specialised Health Service Commission on whether targets relating to cardiac surgery should be increased.

Manufacturing

Mr. Barry Jones: If he will make a statement on the prospects for manufacturing industries in Wales. [82086]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The future of manufacturing industry in Wales is bright, provided that we work together and keep skills and productivity at the top of the agenda. The going has been tough in manufacturing industry—world growth has halved—but in Wales orders are expected to rise slightly over the next four months, and strong manufacturing growth is expected in 2000. The National Assembly will give a lead, working with business and creating jobs and opportunity. That will certainly be a top priority for a Labour-led Assembly.

Mr. Jones: To assist manufacturing in my constituency, will my right hon. Friend fight to keep assisted area status for Deeside, and to deliver objective 2 status for it?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospects for manufacturing in Wales—for example, in the aerospace industry—will not be helped by separatism and nationalism? Does he agree that the leadership of the nationalist party in Wales is over-confident, overstretched and overblown?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his campaign, and wish him success.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. Nearly 50 per cent. of manufacturing investment comes from foreign-owned companies, and Plaid Cymru would put that at risk. We need the balance between inward investment and the promotion of our indigenous companies that only the Labour party has promised to provide.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the aerospace industry. I have made visits to his constituency with him, and I have seen the way in which management and trade unions in Deeside are working together to keep jobs and win jobs for the future.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The House will note that, following pressure last night from Mike German, the Liberal Democrats' leader in Wales, the Secretary of State was unable to confirm the position regarding matched funding for objective 1 status. Will he confirm the statement made in a House of Commons Committee Room on 17 March by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that if there were to be any matched funding for objective 1 status in Wales, it would have to come from the Welsh block?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman's question is very entertaining. He clearly understands that an election is going on in Wales, and 1 commend his ingenuity in managing to mention the representative of his own party, who was last seen in a life jacket.
In fact, a Labour Government won objective 1 status for Wales. There were cynics, not least in the hon. Gentleman's party and in Plaid Cymru, who thought that that could not be achieved. Indeed, the leader of Plaid Cymru was so confident that it would not be achieved that he promised a crate of champagne to my predecessor. As far as I am aware, it has still not been delivered. But we have delivered objective 1 status, and, as the Prime Minister has made clear, a Labour Government will enable the Assembly to use it—and the finances that will be part of the overall £1.3 million—to transform the economy of Wales for the better.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend will not need to be told that manufacturing is always under pressure because it has to compete in a global market for exports and against imports, whereas the much larger service sector in the United Kingdom is not, in the main, subjected to those pressures. Will he ensure that the Bank of England is given that message before it starts to put up interest rates again?

Mr. Michael: I shall ensure that the needs of manufacturing industry in Wales are put at the forefront and that messages are given to colleagues in the Cabinet with other responsibilities. Recently, I was pleased to visit a company in my right hon. Friend's constituency. The link between inward investment from Japan and that


company's rise in his constituency demonstrates how success can be achieved in partnership. Indeed, we are working with that company to put money into research and development to ensure that the high-quality work and skills base is developed. I understand his point. We will need to look carefully at the impact on jobs and manufacturing in Wales.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the dismay that he caused the manufacturing industry last night when he let slip that Wales would have to await the next spending review before it had any chance of any additional money by way of matched funding of objective 1 money from Europe, and that today's statement from Downing street, a recycled fudge on the issue, shows that we will have to rely on existing cash in the Welsh block, which means cutting health or education spending, to take up the objective 1 money that is available? Is it not clear that, as the Secretary of State has failed to deliver the goods, the only option for the Welsh electorate is to keep the pressure on new Labour by denying it an overall majority in the Assembly elections tomorrow?

Mr. Michael: What is clear is that the only way in which the leader of Plaid Cymru can aspire to success is to purvey doom and gloom and to talk Wales down. He is the one who said that we would not achieve objective 1 status, but we did. Let no one take his words seriously in future.
The right hon. Gentleman should be aware of the dismay that was felt in the hearts of people throughout Wales when it was suggested that he would have a number of seats in the Assembly —Plaid Cymru might have some effect in undermining confidence in Wales throughout the world. He should look at the comments by industrialists and employers, who say that they want a Labour lead in the Assembly because such a lead will be good for business. It will be good for Wales, for jobs and for opportunity for people throughout Wales.

Mr. John Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to improve the prospects of the Welsh manufacturing industry from tomorrow is for right hon. and hon. Members to work very closely with newly elected Members of the Welsh Assembly to ensure that we achieve the best possible deal for manufacturing industry in our country? The best way in which to achieve that is, of course, to ensure that, tomorrow, we get as many Labour candidates elected as possible, especially candidates of the calibre of Jane Hutt in the Vale of Glamorgan.

Madam Speaker: Order. If I did not know that there was an election, I know now. Let us get back to the question.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right to point to the need for the Assembly to work in partnership with the House of Commons. He has been an example in the way in which he has worked with the potential Assembly Member for his constituency. I am sure that they will succeed in delivering for that constituency, as Labour Members will throughout Wales.

Dr. Liam Fox: The Labour party has now had stewardship of the Welsh economy for two years

and manufacturing in Wales is in a state of decline. The most worrying thing is that, when it comes to manufacturing industry, business surveys show lower confidence in Wales than in any other part of the UK.
Can the Secretary of State tell us why that should be? Is the situation not perfectly summed up in a typical quote in the Western Mail on 19 April, which said:
We depend upon manufacturing industry. It is important to us. We're not being well served by the Government.
I quote not from a captain of industry, but from a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek).

Mr. Michael: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman was unable to quote a captain of industry in support of the Conservative party; they are supporting Labour. I can say only that, for the hon. Gentleman, a Scot who was a member of a Government who gave us boom and bust and the destruction of the Welsh economy over 18 years, to speak about Wales, is barefaced cheek. GDP in Wales is expected to rise by 0.1 per cent. this year and manufacturing output is expected to decline by 2.9 per cent. this year but bounce back with 4.3 per cent. growth next year. That is the whole point. With the co-operation of the manufacturing industry, we are trying to develop a strong base, high productivity and high skills in a strong Welsh economy which makes use of the strong economy that has been achieved by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Aerospace Industry

Mr. David Borrow: If he will make a statement on the contribution of the aerospace industry to the Welsh economy. [82087]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The aerospace industry is enormously important to Wales and employs some 13,000 people. In recent times, I have visited British Aerospace, Raytheon in Deeside and General Electric at Nantgarw, where I launched the modern apprenticeship target for Wales, and we have also seen confirmation of the continuation and expansion of jobs at, for instance, RAF St. Athan and British Airways. The aerospace industry is high on our agenda of industries with which we need to work.

Mr. Borrow: Over the years, I have had the opportunity to visit a number of airbus plants in the United Kingdom, including those in Bristol and Broughton, which employ many people from Wales as well as from Lancashire, many from my constituency.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the success of the airbus project, which means that the airbus is now outselling Boeing in the international market and employing thousands of extra workers? Not only are new jobs being created in England and Wales but, during the next few years, jobs will be created in Scotland in producing the airbus. Is not that an example of the way in which partnership, not only across Europe but between the different parts of the United Kingdom, can bring success to the British and the European economy?

Mr. Michael: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that, between Wales and Scotland and the regions of England, we see joint working on projects that can bring prosperity to all parts of the United Kingdom. I am keen to see co-operation between the Welsh Development Agency and the North West regional development agency which the Government have put in place. I recently visited the plant to which my hon. Friend referred at Broughton with my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) where I saw the confidence and high quality of the work force and the management team.
Yes, we need to work together across boundaries, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that my priority will be to ensure that we have the strongest possible development within the aircraft industry in Wales.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The pound has risen relentlessly this year. Yesterday, it went over FF10, nudging DM3. What impact will that have on the future prospects for aerospace products made in Britain?

Mr. Michael: That gives a challenge to the British aerospace industry, as it does to other parts of manufacturing industry, a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) a few moments ago. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the importance of the Government's policies in creating stability and bringing an end to boom and bust. This morning, Sir John Harvey-Jones said that a Labour-run Assembly in Wales will provide the blend of stability and innovation that Wales needs. That is what is good for industry.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the Secretary of State's positive statement on the contribution of the aerospace industry to the Welsh economy, but does he also recognise that we in Northern Ireland are dependent on the stable and high—quality jobs that are provided by Shorts? Will he assure us that—once he is confirmed as First Secretary of the new Assembly, and in recognising the value of collaboration throughout the industry and in all regions of the United Kingdom—he will continue to promote such collaboration?

Mr. Michael: Yes, I shall promote it, very much indeed. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I believe that the advent of the National Assembly for Wales —and of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament—will strengthen the United Kingdom and our ability to work together for the benefit of everyone everywhere in these islands. One of my first actions after becoming Secretary of State for Wales was to visit Belfast and to talk to people from all parties about the action that we might take together, such as on tourism. As a group of small countries on Europe's periphery, we not only have much to learn from each other, but may together promote many common concerns—recognising the global nature of some concerns, such as the aerospace industry, which we want to be successful, thereby benefiting all parts of the United Kingdom.

Health Authorities (Allocations)

Ms Jackie Lawrence: What was the average percentage increase in the Welsh Office allocations to Welsh health authorities for 1999–2000. [82088]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): This year, we are providing almost 9 per cent.—£168 million—extra for hospital and community health services in Wales, which is on top of the £18 million waiting list money, which represents an increase of 1.3 per cent. The average increase in general medical services is 10.5 per cent; and, in drugs prescribing, it is 8.8 per cent. In my hon. Friend's own area—which is covered by the Dyfed Powys health authority—discussions are being held on the specific amount of money to be provided this year for health authorities. However, I am able to tell her that, this financial year, the increase for Dyfed Powys is 9.7 per cent., which is £23 million.

Ms Lawrence: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, particularly the part of it applying to my own area of Dyfed Powys. May 1 add that, yet again, the facts have proved "Rottweiler Rod" wrong? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the NHS's remaining problems is the fragmentation caused by the previous Government's policies—which, unfortunately, are taking time to correct? Does he also agree that it is so important for health units—particularly those with local authority social services departments—to work together?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In four of the five areas in Wales, we inherited an NHS with deficits. It has also become clear that the internal market, fundholding and the previous Administration's other health policies created funding and service problems that will take some time to resolve completely. I am absolutely committed to creating a single NHS in Wales—so that, in each area, acute services, mental health services and community health services are provided in an integrated manner, and so that the public and those working in the NHS may have complete confidence in our health service.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Does the Secretary of State realise that the instructions that he has given to the Dyfed Powys health authority, and the trusts therein, to make provision to repay debts previously incurred because of deficits is causing them to come up with bizarre options, such as the centralisation of specialisms away from Bronglais general hospital? Does he agree that any such centralisation is bound to lead to a serious decline in accessibility and in quality of provision? Does he also agree that the National Assembly will have to make an early commitment to the survival and flourishing of Bronglais as a district general hospital, and to provide the type of funds that will be necessary to give that guarantee?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman misquotes the instruction, which was to start repaying and certainly not to make immediate total repayment. I have just mentioned the history that led to our having an NHS in which four of the five units have serious deficits. Although that is a totally unreasonable and unacceptable way of running the


health service, it is what we inherited. The hon. Gentleman knows well the commitment that I gave to Bronglais general hospital and on services in Ceredigion, and that I have given the same commitment on services in Llanelli, where there has been another set of rumours. There is no threat to the accident and emergency units in either of those places.
The sets of rumour and counter-rumour currently flowing around are bizarre. However, I should expect to have the hon. Gentleman's co-operation in reinforcing the reassurances that I have given personally in my visits—so that the rumours might be knocked on the head, and the stock-take that I have started may be used by the Assembly, in its early days, to ensure long-term stability for the NHS and the confidence in the NHS of patients, communities and NHS staff. They should all be able confidently to place their confidence in the NHS in Wales.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I also welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of an increased allocation. He will be well aware of the considerable capital costs in our hospitals, particularly in North Glamorgan NHS trust, and the urgent requirement for capital expenditure. In his new role, will he carry on the urgent work so that we have a full and proper hospital service fit for the 21st century in north Glamorgan?

Mr. Michael: I am happy to promise to my hon. Friend that I shall concentrate on delivering the service that the people of Wales expect from the NHS and on working with colleagues in the National Assembly to put in place a plan as a result of the current stocktaking to ensure that everybody can be confident about the long-term future. There has been too much swinging from one project to another and one extreme to another. We need dependable long-term planning. I know that my hon. Friend needs it for his area; we need it for every part of Wales.

Dr. Liam Fox: The figures on allocations, or fine words, will fool no one working in the NHS in Wales. Doctors and patients in Wales know that, to fiddle the figures, patients are not being put on waiting lists or on waiting lists for waiting lists in case their illnesses embarrass the Government. That may please the Government statisticians, but it will not help any patients, who know that they are waiting longer between seeing their GP and being treated by a consultant. Is not the simple truth that the Government put public relations before patients and put the spin before the sick?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman has obviously been working through the night on that little piece of spin. The simple fact is that the Conservative Government starved the NHS in Wales of the resources that it needs. We are increasing the resources available by 9 per cent. this year, as I have said. I gave facts about real money going to the NHS. I also pointed out the chaos that his party left behind. He and his Government have a great deal to answer for in Wales.

Ann Clwyd: Given the high priority that Labour Governments always give to the NHS, when my right hon. Friend becomes the leader of the Welsh Assembly at the end of this week will he look in particular at the state of the mental health services in north Glamorgan? There are no high-dependency beds or day

care facilities and there is a bad ratio of psychiatric community nurses to patients. I am sure that he will want to put that right as soon as possible.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point. One reason why I want each of the trusts in Wales to provide acute mental health and community health services is to ensure that those services are integrated and balanced for every region of Wales. In the Cynon valley and Merthyr, the two community health councils will give my hon. Friend's constituency a voice in the provision of NHS services. That will put a laser-like focus on the provision of the services that she has asked about. I shall look to her, with her NHS experience, to help in ensuring that we provide the right services at the right time in every respect, including mental health services.

Minimum Wage (Clothing Industry)

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement about the effect of the minimum wage on the numbers employed in the clothing industry in Wales. [82089]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): I am not aware of any impact on the numbers employed in the clothing industry. However, it is clear that 109,000 people in Wales will benefit from the national minimum wage. I am proud to be part of a Labour Government delivering on the pledge of a national minimum wage—something to which the Labour movement has aspired over the past 100 years.

Mr. St. Aubyn: When I asked a similar question two years ago, I was told that it was a disgrace that almost 60,000 workers in Wales earned just £2.50 an hour. We now know from a written reply from the Welsh Office yesterday that since Labour came to power, a net total of 1,300 people working in the clothing industry in Wales have lost their job. Is it a success or a failure of his Department's policy that so many people in Wales are going from a low wage to no wage?

Mr. Michael: There we have another bit of synthetic rhetoric from the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman refers to job losses before the introduction of the minimum wage, which he cannot blame on the minimum wage. The minimum wage will provide a quality of income that some of our poorest-paid workers have not had in the past. It will create a level playing field, and put money in the pockets of people who have been deprived of a decent income over the years. The hon. Gentleman should look at the policies of the previous Conservative Government and their impact in recent years.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Is not the reality that tens of thousands of people in Wales who have suffered insultingly low and unfair wages for many years have at last been given a reasonable level of wages through this great success of our Labour Government? Will my right hon. Friend go further and link the level of the minimum wage with another level to guarantee that it increases in line with inflation? Could I suggest that the level of the minimum wage is linked to the level of pay of Members of this House and of the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Michael: As always, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity. There have been some disgraceful situations as a result of the lack of a minimum wage, such as an advert for a position in the private security industry which paid £2.50 per hour, with own transport and own dog essential. Such disgraceful situations will end following the introduction of the minimum wage. Certainly the increased incomes of 109,000 people in Wales will help the economy of Wales as a whole.

Welsh Assembly (Ministers' Pay)

Mr. Lembit Öpik: If he will introduce performance-related pay for Ministers in the Welsh Assembly. [82091]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): No, but future arrangements will be a matter for the National Assembly.

Mr. Öpik: I am confused, and perhaps the Minister can help clarify an apparent contradiction. If he and the Government support the principle of performance-related pay for teachers, why do they not support it for Members and Ministers of the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Jones: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is confused by a typically silly Liberal election gimmick. Before he advocates that gimmick for the Welsh Assembly, he should consider its effect if it were applied here. If we were to assess the performance of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, we might find that, since they have achieved nothing since Lloyd George, the Exchequer would save a great deal of money.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Should not the performance of Labour Ministers in this House since 1997 be looked at carefully by the people of Wales? So many have been let down decisively by the Government in the past two years, whether they be school children, pensioners or students. If we are talking about performance-related pay and if Labour forms the Government in the Welsh Assembly, Labour Members' pay should be cut—certainly nobody else's. What percentage turnout in the election for the Assembly tomorrow will the Minister deem to be successful? If that turnout is below the 50 per cent. turnout for the referendum, will not the £2 million that the Government have spent on advertising the Assembly elections have been wasted, when it could have been spent on services for the people of Wales?

Mr. Jones: I am content for the electorate in Wales to judge the performance of Labour Ministers, and to compare that performance with that of Opposition spokesmen. I am sure that the opinion polls will be reflected tomorrow, when we will see what the people of Wales think about the performance of Labour Members in comparison with the pathetic performance of the ranting few on the Opposition Benches.

Minimum Wage

Mr. Huw Edwards: What estimate he has made of the impact of the national minimum wage on the average income in Wales. [82092]

Mrs. Diana Organ: What estimate he has made of the impact of the national minimum wage on the average income in Wales. [82093]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): No estimate is available of the impact of the national minimum wage on the average income in Wales, but we know that 109,000 people in Wales will benefit from the national minimum wage, and that is good news for the economy of Wales as a whole.

Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the national minimum wage will be one of the Government's lasting achievements and that, combined with the working families tax credit, the increases in child benefit and the lop starting rate of tax, all of which were opposed by the Conservative party, it will make a significant difference to the incomes of people in Wales?

Mr. Michael: Yes, indeed. Combating poverty is a major priority. It is good to see that people such as small business representatives now see the value of a national minimum wage.

Mrs. Organ: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures that we have introduced to raise the income of 109,000 people in Wales are a refreshing change from the previous Government's policies, which were an attempt to promote Wales as a low-skill, low-wage area?

Mr. Michael: Yes, indeed. If we can end dependency, get people into work and improve their skills and the quality of jobs available to them, that will be a test by which I will be glad to be judged when we can see the success that the first four years of the National Assembly for Wales will have brought about.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Ql. [82115] Mrs. Linda Gilroy: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Mrs. Gilroy: In this Red Cross week, will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the important humanitarian work of the Red Cross Society, both here and abroad? The Red Cross and the Red Crescent are well known for their work providing care and comfort in crises. Is not their work to support international humanitarian law, and especially


the Geneva conventions, also very important? By his flagrant breach of that law, Milosevic has put himself outside the pale of civilised society. Will my right hon. Friend do everything that he can to promote the Geneva conventions, both in seeking a solution to the Kosovo crisis and in the future?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the Red Cross. It is doing magnificent work in the Balkans and the volunteers are using every bit of energy that they can to help people there. We have given about £2.5 million to the Red Cross, and a total of £40 million in humanitarian assistance. I know that my hon. Friend would want me to mention also the humanitarian work of the British armed forces to help the refugees, which I saw at first hand. Our effort stands comparison with that of any country in the world.

Mr. William Hague: The Health Secretary denied it yesterday, but will the Prime Minister now admit that the Government did indeed propose to the European Union raising the maximum working hours of junior hospital doctors from 56 to 65 a week?

The Prime Minister: On the contrary, under this Government, the number of junior doctors who work unacceptably long hours has fallen. When we came to office, 6,500 junior doctors worked more than 56 hours a week; we have cut that number to 4,800. Under our proposals, no doctor will be asked to work more hours than at present.

Mr. Hague: The facts are plain. The Government are proposing a higher hours limit. The Health Secretary denied it yesterday, and today the Prime Minister says, "On the contrary," but what is this minute of the Council meeting in Brussels, dated 15 April 1999, saying:
The UK delegation is proposing the following text… 'an average of [65] hours a week during the first eight years …and an average of [60] hours a week for the remaining seven years'."?
Only this Prime Minister would claim that an increase from 56 to 65 is a reduction. Can he confirm that what the Government are proposing would also last for 15 years?

The Prime Minister: No, not merely do I not confirm it, I deny it. We are reducing the number of hours that doctors work. There is a transitional period; the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned 15 years. That is necessary, since we must recruit more doctors, and training for some of the specialties takes 15 years. However, as a result of what we are doing, junior doctors' hours will be reduced. They are being reduced now.
Furthermore, we are going to increase the numbers recruited by 7,000 over the next three years, and we are increasing the numbers in training by 20 per cent. So, as a result of this Government, by the end of our first term in office, junior doctors will be working fewer hours and we will have recruited more doctors.

Mr. Hague: If it is so good for junior doctors, why does the British Medical Association say that it is a "slap in the face" for doctors and
a betrayal of the patients"?
The Prime Minister's position in answering those questions is to deny the truth, except the point that it will happen for the next 15 years—which he has now admitted.
The truth is that, the greater the claims that the Government make about the health service, the less they deliver. They said that they would reduce waiting lists, and they went up. Now, there are twice as many people waiting to go on the waiting lists. They claim that they are trying to reduce junior doctors' hours, and those hours are increased by the document. Is not the BMA right to say that that is a betrayal of doctors? Is it not a betrayal of all the promises that the Government made on health?

The Prime Minister: No. Let me repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman, and let us see whether this time he can understand. Junior doctors' hours are being reduced. As for the working time directive, his party is opposed to it. He must now be saying that he is in favour of it, but he has been against it all the way through. As for the numbers of people going into the health service, we are increasing those, too—more doctors, more nurses. And we are putting an extra £21 billion into the health service. Are the Conservatives in favour of that extra £21 billion? We do not know.

Mr. Hague: More hours.

The Prime Minister: Let the right hon. Gentleman take it one more time. Under this Government, junior doctors are working fewer hours. That is what we have delivered—better than at any point when the Conservatives were in office. All that questions on the health service from the Conservatives reveal is that, on that as on so much else, they have not the faintest idea what they are talking about.

Ms Oona King: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the most precious things in this country is the right to free speech? Is not the only thing more precious the right to life? Given that, and in the light of the recent atrocities in my constituency and elsewhere in London, will he look at tightening the laws governing incitement to racial hatred so that individuals—or groups—who are guilty of it face penalties, and, in this country, the only thing that we nail is intolerance?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we are considering how we extend the law, in order to ensure that incitement to racial hatred is a crime. We shall do everything that we can to make it clear that, although we live in a tolerant democracy, we shall be intolerant of racial prejudice and racial bigotry. Wherever these people rear their ugly heads, the forces of democracy will be there, ready to deal with them.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister has told us this week that he wants a society that is tolerant at home and compassionate abroad. How does he believe that he is contributing to that by pushing through this House a piece of Tory legislation, the chief characteristic of which is to seek to deter asylum seekers by treating them with a mixture of delay, penury and injustice?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that at all. The aim of the legislation is to reduce the time spent dealing with asylum claims so that, by April 2001, the initial claims for asylum should be dealt with inside two months, on average, and any subsequent appeal may be handled within four months. Anyone who has studied the present


asylum system knows that it is not working properly. There is a huge backlog of cases, and proper, genuine asylum seekers often do not get the treatment that they need. We are changing the law precisely to ensure that genuine asylum seekers are treated properly.

Mr. Ashdown: If the aim of the legislation, and of the Government, is to reduce the queue, they are failing comprehensively, as the queue has got longer and longer under this Government.
Let me put the following to the Prime Minister: the denial of social security benefits to asylum seekers is "inhumane". That statement is not mine—it was made by the present Home Secretary at the last election. If it was true then, why is not true now? To put it another way: does the Prime Minister believe that he is fulfilling the great tradition of this country—that of showing generosity and compassion to those who seek refuge on our shores—by providing an asylum seeker with an allowance for her child of 50p a day?

The Prime Minister: First of all, the right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong about the facts. We opposed the Conservatives' withdrawal of all benefits to asylum seekers. That is not the process that we are putting in place now. What we have done is to say that, if we want to make a fundamental change, we have to make the system quicker and more effective.
There has been a rise of 42 per cent. in the number of cases, even while the backlog remains. The right hon. Gentleman says that the backlog is getting worse: it is, but that is precisely why we need the new legislation to change the system. When the new system is in place, we will be able to deal with asylum claims better, more effectively and more quickly. Genuine asylum seekers will be made welcome, but we do not want claims to be stacked up for years and years—as they are at present—and then not dealt with properly. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman giving that display of outrage if he is not prepared to confront the facts and understand that, without reform, the system does not help genuine asylum seekers—indeed, it harms them.

Mr. Chris Pond: Given that the new deal is intended to provide lasting and worthwhile employment, does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be of no help to the Conservative party in finding a new chairman, now that Mr. Portillo has refused the job?

Madam Speaker: Order. That is not the business of the Prime Minister and is rather a wasted question.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the Prime Minister please explain how the democratic rights of my constituents in Beaconsfield have been enhanced by Scottish devolution? Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, the disposal in Colnbrook in my constituency of radioactive waste coming from Scotland is subject to authorisation by a United Kingdom Minister. However, after 1 July, it will be subject to authorisation by the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament. I will not be able to ask a parliamentary question of that person, and the House will not be able to hold him to account in relation to his duties in this country under the 1993 Act.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If radioactive material comes through England, it is subject

to the English authority. In addition, I believe that devolution will benefit all the people of the United Kingdom. Before devolution, people faced a choice between the status quo —which was not accepted in places such as Scotland and Wales—or separatism. Now, people have the proper choice of devolution, and I believe that that will be supported in England, as well as in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Further to the last question, let me say that we are on the eve of the completion of John Smith's unfinished business—the re-establishment of a Scottish Parliament after nearly three centuries. That is the settled will of the Scottish people as demonstrated at the referendum. Amid the short-term problems of politics, will not the first-ever democratic election of a Scottish Parliament be a truly historic event?

The Prime Minister: The Scottish Parliament was called unfinished business by John Smith. There is no better expression of his values and love of democracy than the Scottish Parliament. It offers us the chance of an enhanced and strengthened United Kingdom, in which those things that are distinctively Scottish can be handled in Scotland. Where it is right to co-operate and work in partnership, we shall do so within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bob Russell: The whole House will have been appalled by last week's bomb outrage in Soho. I regret that two of the three people who died—Andrea Dykes and John Light—were constituents of mine. On behalf of the House, may I invite the Prime Minister to send condolences to their families and best wishes to all those who were injured, including Julian Dykes, who does not yet know that his wife, who was four months pregnant, was killed?
We cannot comment specifically on the case, because someone has been charged with the murders. May I suggest, however, that security cameras have an important part to play in detecting and preventing crime?

The Prime Minister: On the last point, that is part of the reason why we have committed an extra £150 million for closed circuit television cameras, which do a tremendous job as we try both to cut crime and to identify the people who commit crime.
In his first point, the hon. Gentleman spoke for the whole House. I certainly send my heartfelt sympathy to the families of those people who died as a result of a callous and brutal act. They and their families will have the support, thoughts and prayers of the whole House.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will my right hon. Friend liaise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the new deal? It seems that there is great difficulty in filling some jobs being advertised in some parts of the country. Those jobs are not attracting applications, even though they require no special qualification. My attention was drawn to The Daily Telegraph yesterday, which noted that the Conservative


party is advertising for candidates, but finding great difficulty in receiving any applications. Can the Prime Minister offer any advice?

Madam Speaker: Order. The question relates to the new deal.

The Prime Minister: All I can say is that the new deal applies only to permanent jobs and would not therefore be suitable.

Mr. Philip Hammond: After the fiasco over junior doctors' hours, does the Prime Minister recall that his Government made a pledge to the nurses in February that this year's pay settlement would be met in full from 1 April? Is he aware that many nurses received no additional pay in their April pay packets and that many NHS trusts are having great difficulty in financing the unfunded element of the nurses' pay settlement? What is he going to do about that?

The Prime Minister: On junior doctors' hours, we are decreasing hours, not increasing them. That is the fact. Secondly, on nurses, we are the Government who have increased nurses' pay by more than at any other point in the past 20 years. Thirdly, we are funding the pay increase out of the additional £21 billion described just a few months ago by the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues as reckless and irresponsible. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, but, as a result of what the Government are investing in the health service, there are more doctors and more nurses, and, for the first time ever, starting nurses are receiving a decent pay rise.

Mrs. Diana Organ: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the transfer of 500 jobs from the Xerox plant in Mitcheldean in my constituency to Dundalk in southern Ireland, which may lead to the loss of 100 further jobs in local subsidiary companies? What support can the Government offer to help those 600 workers to find future employment, and what assistance can they give to local economies, such as that of the Forest of Dean, to sustain, improve and develop the vital manufacturing sector?

The Prime Minister: I know that there is a task force in the area, which is helping those people who are going to lose their jobs. Although 500 jobs are to be transferred from Gloucestershire, 1,750 remain and I understand that a further 250 are being created. Obviously, I share my hon. Friend's concern about any changes that are made, but those are commercial decisions for the company. I should point out that, fortunately, the UK remains a very attractive location for overseas companies: a record 600 projects were attracted here last year, creating some 46,000 jobs. Of course, during rationalisation and change, some jobs will go and some stay, but the difference under the Labour Government is that we are trying to put in place measures that will help people to find new jobs when, unfortunately, their jobs are lost.

Mr. William Hague: Whose fault is it that the Prime Minister's own district council,

Sedgefield, has one of the highest council taxes in the country? Is it the fault of the Labour council, or of the Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that, as evidenced by the huge vote that we always get for Sedgefield's Labour district councillors, we enjoy the full support of all the local people.

Mr. Hague: We are talking about the Prime Minister's constituency, where something is wrong and it is nobody's fault. Is it not true that Sedgefield has the 13th highest council tax in band D, at £967? The right hon. Gentleman is in good company on the Government Benches, with Redcar at £1,033 and Hartlepool at £978—no wonder the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) always keeps a posh house in London. Why do people who live under Labour councils have to pay high council taxes for poor services, incompetent administration and Labour councillors, a string of whom have fiddled the books?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has again got his facts wrong: the average council tax increase is lower in Labour councils than in Conservative councils; Conservative councils have higher than average increases in council tax; and the average council tax per dwelling is lower in Labour areas.

Mr. Hague: And is it not true that the highest council taxes are all in Labour authorities, except for those in Liberal-controlled Liverpool, which has the highest of all? Is it not true that, in Blaenau Gwent, the former Labour mayor has been convicted of fraudulent expense claims; that, in Lewisham, the Labour chairman of housing was sentenced to 60 days in Brixton prison; and that, in Doncaster, four Labour councillors have gone to jail and the man whom the Prime Minister sent in to clean it up has now himself been arrested? Is it not the case that they are now the only people left in the Labour party who have genuine convictions? Is it not the case that if people want low council taxes, honest local government and good services, they have to vote Conservative tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: No. I have to point out, not only that Labour councils have lower than average increases in council tax, but that all that the Conservatives do is take band D properties, when only 30 per cent. of properties are band D. If we take all properties, we see that people pay lower council taxes in Labour areas than in Conservative ones; moreover, they get better services—better education services and better local government services.
As for the respective merits of candidates, I can do no better than to quote the sole Conservative candidate for Rutland council, Mr. John Duckham, who, when asked why there were not many Conservative candidates in Rutland, replied:
nobody came forward. It was not as though there were just no suitable candidates; we have long put behind us scruples about endorsing people purely on the grounds of their suitability.
I think that we stand rather a good comparison.

Ms Jenny Jones: Today, we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that


the values for which the Council of Europe stands—democracy and human rights—are as relevant to Europeans today as they were 50 years ago? Does he also agree that vigilance is needed if those values are to be safeguarded and future generations of Europeans are to benefit from democracy and human rights?

The Prime Minister: It is right that the Council of Europe stands for those values, and we are fighting for them in Kosovo. It is worth pointing out that, since the second world war and the formation of the European Union, there have been tremendous strides forward within the EU in peace, prosperity and security. [Interruption.] I believe that to be the case. I think that Europe and the European Union have stood the test of time pretty well over the past 50 years. I think that the values of justice and democracy are the very values that we should be advancing now for south-east Europe and the Balkans.

Mr. Robert Walter: The Prime Minister will recall, that two weeks ago—not for the first time this year—I asked him whether he could give the House a date on which beef exports would be resumed. Yet again, he did not answer the question. Later that day, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in answer to a question in a debate, said that the Government were working to a timetable. Will the Prime Minister tell us where in that timetable is the date for the resumption of beef exports?

The Prime Minister: As I said to the hon. Gentleman last time, there had to be an inspection process first. I told him that an invitation was extended to the Commission. The Commission came between 12 and 16 April. Its representatives have gone back and they will prepare a report for the Commission. Once that report has satisfied the Commission that all the various obstacles have been overcome, a date will be submitted by the European Commission and agreed by us. That is the procedure that has to be gone through.
I repeat to the hon. Gentleman—I think that I said this to him last time—that I do not accept the idea that we should take lessons from the Conservative party about BSE. We have had to sort out the vast multi-billion pound mess that we inherited from the previous Conservative Government.

World Bank and IMF (Reform)

Mr. David Chaytor: What proposals he has for the reform of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom has put forward proposals for a far-reaching reform of the international financial architecture to promote greater transparency. Those proposals are designed to develop improved mechanisms for crisis prevention and resolution and to minimise the human cost of financial crises. Together with the initiatives that we are taking forward at the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, for debt relief and poverty reduction, they amount to a substantial package of measures. I hope to make progress on all those matters at the June Cologne summit.

Mr. Chaytor: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply and congratulate the Government on the international lead

that they have given on this reform process. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the past, too often the International Monetary Fund particularly has been the problem and not the solution in times of financial crisis? Does he agree also that an external evaluation system is needed for the IMF to improve its scrutiny and accountability, such as currently applies in the World bank?

The Prime Minister: The UK has been a proponent of greater transparency in the IMF. I believe that the IMF, particularly under Michel Camdessus, has done excellent work in many parts of the world. However, the most important single problem that we face is constructing the financial architecture, both in greater accountability and transparency of national financial systems, that allows us to be able to deal with financial crises in a much better way.
That is for the long term. For the short term, we have to ensure that there are sufficient funds available to help any country through a short-term liquidity crisis. We support reforms in the IMF, but I think that further reforms are necessary to make the system work.

Engagements

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the Prime Minister confirm, so that the people in this country really understand, that, once the Scots are to be deciding their own affairs in their own Parliament, the same number of Scottish Members will continue to come to Westminster to poke their nose into English affairs? Incidentally, most of those individuals are in the right hon. Gentleman's Government. Will he turn his mind to being fair to the rest of the population and tell us why it has not crossed his mind that we should also have a Parliament for England?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Lady is outlining Conservative policy. One can never be sure. It is the case that devolution provides the chance for the United Kingdom to be strengthened for the 21st century. I believe that both the separatists, who want to wrench Scotland and Wales out of the United Kingdom, and those who advocate the status quo are the true enemies of the Union and of the United Kingdom. The best way forward is to have devolution and to make sure that, in future, those things that are distinctively Scottish can be decided in Scotland.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recent visit to the Balkans. I, too, recently visited the camps there under the auspices of UNICEF. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, once we have provided immediate aid in the camps, one of the most important things that we need to do is to support those people in finding their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and other relatives? So many of the refugees have been split from those whom they love. As well as supplying immediate aid, we must reunite them with their relatives and friends.

The Prime Minister: Again, we are playing a leading part in trying to make sure that families are reunited. We


are providing as much assistance as we can to people on the ground. As I said earlier, the British troops are playing a marvellous role in that. We have made it known that we are prepared to do more to help refugees in this country. However, the refugees to whom I spoke were determined that we should carry on with our action until we succeeded.
I know that my hon. Friend will support that. The only thing that will ultimately secure the future of those people is for them to be allowed to return to Kosovo in peace. That is why we must intensify our action, we must make sure that the NATO demands are met, and not for one instant must we let up until those demands are met.

Kosovo Refugees

Sir Norman Fowler: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy concerning refugees from Kosovo.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As I explained to the House at oral questions last week, the Government's priority, along with our European partners, is to ensure that, as far as possible, Kosovan refugees are cared for within the region, so that they can return to their homes as soon as it is safe for them to do so, which is the refugees' overwhelming wish. There has been widespread understanding of the NATO allies' determination not to allow any actions to be taken that might inadvertently facilitate Milosevic's vile and brutal policy of ethnic cleansing.
We have also long made it clear that the United Kingdom stands ready to receive some thousands of refugees from the region on humanitarian grounds and on the basis of criteria agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The priority of the UNHCR is to relieve pressure on the camps, not least in respect of the most vulnerable and those with family links in the United Kingdom.
We received the first request from the UNHCR on 20 April and agreed it within one hour. The first plane of refugees from Kosovo arrived in the UK at Leeds-Bradford airport on Sunday 25 April. There were 161 refugees, mainly women and children, including three cases in need of medical treatment. The second plane of 169 refugees arrived at East Midlands airport on 29 April.
Reception services for the refugees are being organised by the Refugee Council in co-operation with its partner agencies, Refugee Action, the Scottish Refugee Council and the Red Cross. Local authorities, airport authorities, the immigration service and local medical services are also heavily involved.
No upper limit has been set on the number of refugees that we will take. The UNHCR has now asked us to take more refugees because of the changing situation on the ground in Kosovo, and we are responding. A team of Home Office officials will be arriving in Macedonia very shortly to speed up the registration of refugees for potential evacuation.
The next two flights will arrive at Prestwick airport in Ayr on Sunday 9 May. We expect that there will be a further two flights later next week, building up in the following weeks to between five and seven planes a week, leading to a weekly total of around 1,000 refugees.
Local authorities, through their national association, have been fully involved from the start in the planning and development of these arrangements. Their representative was present at a regular meeting last week when contingency plans to increase flights to between five and seven a week were discussed.
The Refugee Council and its partner agencies are working closely with the Home Office and local government associations to identify sites for further reception centres across the United Kingdom. We are looking at all parts of the UK. A variety of different forms of accommodation will be used as temporary reception

centres where the refugees can be housed before moving into more settled accommodation. As the numbers increase, the refugees may need to be housed—for a while, at least—in former service accommodation.
I have already made it clear that local authorities and the voluntary sector will be reimbursed the additional costs that they incur in respect of these arrangements.
Those refugees who arrive here by way of priority from the UNHCR are either being granted permission to enter in line with that of close family members already settled in the UK or, where there are no such close family members here already, they are being given exceptional leave to remain for 12 months, to provide for their protection as requested by the UNHCR. Such status provides a "passport" into the normal benefits system and the right to work. Kosovans who arrive in Britain by their own means will continue to be able to apply for asylum in the normal way.
Finally, I pay tribute to the voluntary sector, to the local authorities and to the British public as a whole for their magnificent response so far to those who have arrived, and to the way in which I know that response will continue.

Sir Norman Fowler: Opposition Members entirely share the commitment to give all possible help and relief to refugees from Kosovo. Many of the families involved have suffered appallingly in the past months. In the light of that and the sheer scale of the problem, it is right that we should approach the plight of the refugees in a spirit of generosity.
Given that, I hope that the Home Secretary will give an assurance that he will keep the House fully informed of policy. Today, every newspaper in the country reported that the Government would take 1,000 refugees a week into this country. Whether that is a change of policy or, as one Home Office official called it, "a change of pace," it was, by any standards, a significant development. In my view, it should have been reported first to the House of Commons.
Against that background, let me put some brief points to the Home Secretary. First, we agree that the priority is to ensure that, as far as possible, refugees from Kosovo are cared for within that region. That is what the refugee families want and, of course, they also want to return to their homes as soon as it is safe for them to do so. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree that, in the meantime, that means that all possible assistance should be given, in particular to Albania and Macedonia.
Secondly, may I ask the Home Secretary about the total number of refugees that he envisages coming to this country? Several other countries have put a figure on it, but he has stuck to his formula of "some thousands". He has talked, and did so again this afternoon, of a weekly total of around 1,000 refugees arriving a week, but he has given no indication of how long that process will continue. Is there not advantage in giving the agencies involved, and the public generally, some better guide to the numbers envisaged under his policy?
Further to that point, the Home Secretary will have seen in the press the comments of some local authority spokesmen, which are rather contrary to the impression that he has given this afternoon. They are concerned whether facilities are adequate to care properly for the numbers of refugees that could be envisaged. Is the Home


Secretary satisfied that there will be adequate resources and, in particular, adequate help for the education authorities for the children involved?
In addition, will the families arriving from Kosovo eventually be subject to the regime of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, when it becomes law? In particular, will local authorities still have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children who arrive here?
Perhaps most crucially, will the Home Secretary emphasise that action is being taken entirely on humanitarian grounds? In no way can Milosevic use that action to validate his actions in Kosovo, which the whole nation utterly condemns. Our overriding aim remains that those refugees should be enabled to return to their own homes and live in peace and security.

Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tenor of his remarks and for his full support for the approach which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have taken in respect of the priority, which has to be to secure humanitarian relief in the region of Kosovo. As my right hon. Friend said a few moments ago at Prime Minister's questions, let it be clear that the United Kingdom's contribution to the humanitarian relief within that region stands comparison with that of any country in the world.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would keep the House fully informed. Yes, of course I will. I made what turned out to be a full statement at parliamentary questions just a week ago, and I shall continue to keep the House informed. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the total number of refugees. We thought it wise from the start not to set either a minimum or a maximum limit, because the situation is changing. I believe that our original judgment not to set an upper limit, but instead to say that we stand ready to take some thousands of refugees, was correct because, as we have seen in the past few days, the situation on the ground in Kosovo—and therefore in Macedonia and Albania—is changing all the time.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about local authorities. I am aware of what one particular local authority spokesperson said, but the truth is that local authorities, through the Local Government Association, have been fully involved in these arrangements from the start, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect. One of their representatives was present at a meeting last Friday, when the contingency plans to take between five and seven flights a week were discussed. It is our judgment that the facilities will be sufficient. As I made clear, as the numbers build up, the arrangements for the initial housing of the refugees will have to be in reception centres and perhaps in service accommodation, given the numbers.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the families admitted on UNHCR nomination will be subject to the regime in the Immigration and Asylum Bill when that becomes law. The answer is no, because the regime specified in that Bill is for those who seek asylum status and have no formal leave to remain in this country, other than a pending asylum application. Those who are coming in are being given either leave to enter, consistent with the leave that their close family members have already been given, or exceptional leave to remain. That means

that they are automatically passported to social security benefits and to the right to work, and the full obligations of local authorities under the Children Act apply from the start in respect of those children.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I very much welcome the step that my right hon. Friend has taken to admit refugees from Kosovo and to give them exceptional leave to remain. In the next week or two, while we are still discussing the Immigration and Asylum Bill, will he reflect on what the position might be? Those who are given exceptional leave to remain will not necessarily be debarred from applying for asylum. If they then applied for asylum, would they still be entitled to the benefits to which they are currently being given access?

Mr. Straw: They would not be deprived of those benefits because they have a pre-existing right to remain in this country in terms of exceptional leave. 1 can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Home Secretary aware that we share his view, because it is the overwhelming view of the refugees themselves, that the primary objective of the policy should be to create safe conditions for those people to return to their homes, and that everything that we do in the meantime must be consistent with that objective but must meet human need as best we can? In that context, does the Home Secretary not recognise that there was considerable concern that, whereas Germany had taken nearly 10,000 refugees, we had taken only some 300? His statement today will be welcomed.
Can the Home Secretary say whether there is sufficient support from the Home Office for our missions in Tirana and Skopje, which will have to facilitate the movement of refugees? Is he satisfied that the UNHCR will have obtained the necessary information for war crimes tribunals and the return of refugees?
Finally, may I return to a point raised by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)? Will education authorities be reimbursed for all the relevant education expenditure that they may incur for the children of those refugees?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and to his party for their support for the overall approach that we have taken. He asked me a number of questions. He mentioned Germany. It must be acknowledged that refugee flows are never symmetrical. The number of refugees who seek access to any individual country in Europe has a great deal to do with historic and geographical ties. It is a matter of history that there are already 170,000 refugees from Kosovo in the German Republic: that is getting on for a tenth of the total population of Kosovo Albanians. Germany was bound to be able to offer many more refugee places because many of the refugees can stay with members of their family, and because there was great pressure in Germany for that country to receive refugees. I repeat what the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's questions. We must judge the United Kingdom's contribution to humanitarian relief in this country and in the Kosovo region as a whole, and that stands comparison with any other country in the world.


The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there is sufficient support for the missions in Skopje and Tirana. I pay tribute to the huge effort of officials from the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. However, they can always do with more support, and we are aiming to give them that by way of the Home Office team that is going out to Macedonia shortly.
Every effort is being put into the investigation of war crimes. On the issue of reimbursement of expenditure by local authorities, the details are being worked out at the moment. I said in my statement that the additional costs of local authorities and the voluntary sector would be reimbursed by central Government.

Ann Clwyd: I am sure that there will be overwhelming support from the British people for the Government's decision to admit refugees in larger numbers than previously. The British people are keen on that idea, and many of them have signified that they want to welcome refugees into their own homes.
What is the status of the 10,000 Kosovo refugees who have already come into this country? How many of them have been given refugee status? If it is a small number, can consideration of the other cases be speeded up? When I was in Albania last week, I was told by our embassy that it was granting no visas for refugees to this country. Will my right hon. Friend look into that matter, because I was also told that refugees seeking visas were being sent to Istanbul? That sounds ridiculous, and there must be an explanation. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would comment on those two points.

Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. No new decision has been taken to admit larger numbers than have previously been admitted. The original decision that we would take some thousands of refugees was made at the beginning of April. We have merely sought to bring the arrangements consistent with that policy into play.
My hon. Friend asked about the status of the 10,000 or so people who have claimed asylum on the basis that they are from Kosovo and are ethnic Albanians. From recollection—I am happy to write to my hon. Friend—between 3,000 and 4,000 of that 10,000 have been granted either asylum status or exceptional leave to remain, and we are making arrangements to speed up the consideration of the other cases. Consideration of those cases is bound to be more complicated than the granting of exceptional leave to remain to those nominated by the UNHCR. Sadly, although a high proportion of those who claim that they are ethnic Albanians from Kosovo and are in need of protection under the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees, a number of others are not, as claimed, from Kosovo but are either Albanians who have no basis of claim under the 1951 convention or come from other parts of the region. We must ensure that the genuine applicants who meet the criteria are separated from those who are either genuine but do not meet the convention criteria or who are abusive and fraudulent applicants.
My hon. Friend expressed concerns about our post in Albania, and I shall certainly follow those up.

Mr. John Wilkinson: When I raised this issue on Monday, the Home Secretary said that

the United Kingdom stood ready to accept some thousands of refugees. May I point out to him that, before the exodus began, my local authority sent me a communication stating that it was already under refugee pressures that it could not sustain?
While the British people's hospitality is wholly commendable, may I say to the Home Secretary that this crisis was entirely predictable? From the time when the first bomb dropped, a mass exodus was to be expected. I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government ought to prepare plans on the scale of the dispositions made to receive refugees from Idi Amin's Uganda, but that clearly has not been done. Will he now reassure us that the efflux will be spread around the United Kingdom, and that hard-pressed London boroughs that can already barely cope will not have to bear an excessive burden?

Mr. Straw: I would like to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. He will have noted that planes have landed at Leeds-Bradford and East Midlands airports so far, and that next Sunday, 9 May, planes are due to land at Prestwick.
We are aware of the substantial pressures faced by the hon. Gentleman's borough, by a number of other inner and outer London boroughs and, as it happens, by district councils in the region of Kent, around Dover. It is precisely because of the disproportionate burden that a number of those boroughs are having to bear that we introduced the Immigration and Asylum Bill, so that asylum seekers who enter the country in the normal course of events—they usually do so clandestinely—do not necessarily end up in Dover or the key boroughs, but can be dispersed, not to the four quarters of the earth but to areas where they can be cared for sensibly and properly and where there is much less pressure than London boroughs are currently experiencing.

Mr. Tony Benn: I welcome the Government's decision to take refugees, but may I ask the Home Secretary two questions? First, given his suggestion that, if the problem is to be dealt with, it will be necessary to bypass his own legislation, will he look at the legislation again to see why that is the case? Secondly—this involves looking further ahead—are the Government and their partners in NATO committed to resettling the refugees in Kosovo? Has an estimate been made of how long that would take, what it would cost and who would pay? The desire to return home when ethnic cleansing is over will be the first thought in the minds of the refugees here.

Mr. Straw: Let me reassure my right hon. Friend that there is no bypassing of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The Bill, of which an extensive proportion is concerned with immigration rather than asylum control, concerns people who have sought asylum status in this country under the 1951 convention, but have not been granted it. It has virtually nothing to do with either those who have been granted status under the convention, as refugees, or those who are given exceptional leave to remain in this country. They are automatically passported on to benefits, they have a right to work, and all the obligations imposed on local authorities by the Children Act apply to them.
My right hon. Friend asked whether we were committed to resettling refugees in Kosovo when the war is over. The answer is yes. It is not just because we are


committed to that, but because the overwhelming majority of refugees are desperate to return, that the fundamental focus of humanitarian relief must be on the region of Kosovo.

Mr. Alan Clark: Can the Home Secretary assure the House that his Department is taking effective screening measures to eliminate criminal elements among the refugee immigrants? His hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will tell him that I have already raised that in the House, on the Adjournment.
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen both the MI6 report and the Interpol papers regarding the Kosovo Liberation Army's drugs and prostitution racketeering, and the general level of intimidation involved in its infiltration of the refugee camps and, in some cases, the refugees themselves? If he and his Department do not get a proper grip, a concomitant load will be thrown on both local authority services and the police in this country.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not disclose which papers from the Security Service or the Secret Intelligence Service I have seen.
One reason why I said earlier that we must look carefully at each of the claims made by the 10,000 people who enter the country by other means to claim asylum—typically, by clandestine means—is that, while some are genuine and meet the criteria of the 1951 convention, others are abusive claimants who come from Albania rather than Kosovo. As the right hon. Gentleman asks, some of them are criminals. It is obviously important that, so far as possible, we ensure that they are not given any status in this country.
That is why we have to resist those naive clarion calls saying that, without any verification, we should give refugee status to anyone who turns up in this country who claims to be a Kosovo Albanian from Kosovo; we cannot do that. The people who would be most undermined by that are genuine Kosovan refugees. Of that there is no question.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: First, will settlement be organised in clusters, to ensure that there is adequate mutual support for the families involved? Secondly, what counselling arrangements will be available, and from what agencies, for a people who have been through such immense suffering?

Mr. Straw: The arrangement is to ensure that people are settled in clusters. Indeed, that is the settled policy of the Government in respect of overall dispersal of asylum seekers, which we have set out in many consultative documents, and which we published alongside the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Every effort is being made to provide for mutual support, not least from the existing Kosovan population in this country. There is obviously an urgent need, for example, for interpreters.
I revert to the previous question. One of the reasons why we are sending a team of Home Office officials to the region, particularly Macedonia, to assist the UNHCR, is to help to process applicants to ensure that the people who come to this country by plane through the Refugee Council arrangements are those who are most in need.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems among the

refugees is the number of broken families—and the number of children who have been separated perhaps from both parents and have no knowledge of whether their parents are alive? Does he accept that the International Social Service—with which I have some connection—which has its headquarters in Geneva and branches in Britain and in many European countries, and which specialises in uniting broken families and bringing destitute children back to relatives, should be encouraged to play a part wherever possible? Will he encourage the International Social Service branch in Britain to do all it can to help with that particular problem?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. I can reassure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, who is on the Treasury Bench, take that matter extremely seriously. We have already given £2.5 million to the International Red Cross precisely to assist in family reunion. Moreover, one of the criteria for admission to the UNHCR's lists of those to come to this country is family reunion.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary accept that many of us are pleased with the support that the Government are giving to the recent arrivals from Kosovo and, in particular, the immediate reimbursement of local authorities of any extra costs that they have? It is important that they be rapidly paid. The move is extremely welcome.
Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the anomalous position whereby newly arrived refugees from Kosovo will be given exceptional leave to remain—and, therefore, correctly, access to all benefits— while many existing asylum seekers in this country will continue to depend on food vouchers, handouts and little cash, a system that leads to high administrative costs and to very unpleasant experiences for many of those asylum seekers, who feel humiliation in their communities? Will he reflect on the fact that that anomaly will get worse as time goes on? Perhaps now is the time to reflect on the wisdom of that policy in the first place.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general endorsement of our approach; I shall pocket and treasure it.
There is nothing anomalous in the position of the Kosovan refugees who arrive here by nomination of the UNHCR. There is no doubt about their status. They are known to be refugees, having a well-founded fear of persecution by the state from which they come. There is therefore no question but that we can grant them exceptional leave to remain or other status to allow them to remain here. The problem with those who arrive clandestinely is, as I have explained, where they come from and whether they have a well-founded fear persecution. In many cases they do. Two-thirds of all asylum recognitions in the past month have been in respect of Kosovo, but some do not have a well-founded fear at all; they have made it up. They do not come from the area. We owe it to the House and to genuine Kosovan refugees to discover who they are and whether they have such a right.
I wholly reject my hon. Friend's suggestion about the way in which the benefits in kind will work. Our argument with the previous Government in respect of
benefits for asylum seekers was that they proposed to withdraw any benefit, whether in cash or in kind, from those who claimed asylum within country, and allow benefits only for those who claimed them at port. That would have left people destitute. Local authorities have had to fill that breach and they have done so well. But, as we heard from the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), that has placed substantial pressure on a disproportionate but small number of local authorities, principally in London. Those who have received benefits in kind have in no way gone destitute, however. They have been properly cared for and they will continue to be cared for under our new arrangements.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that all hon. Members and every United Kingdom citizen are deeply concerned about the plight of the Kosovan refugees and the way in which they have been treated by the Government of Serbia, but would not the Home Secretary think it appropriate to give the House an estimate of the cost of what we are doing? Secondly, does he believe—it may not be politically correct to say so—that all those who will be admitted to this country will willingly return to Kosovo as and when it is appropriate for them to do so? Is it not appropriate for the Government to provide all the aid that is necessary, by way of temporary and mobile housing and all the other forms of aid, to enable Kosovan refugees in Macedonia and Albania to be accommodated temporarily in those countries prior to Kosovo becoming safe again for the people of Kosovo to return to their own country?

Mr. Straw: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an estimate of the total cost immediately because the situation is changing, but as soon as a reasonable and robust estimate of the cost becomes available I shall make it available to the House. I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being politically correct. The thought would not pass through my mind. However, I should correct him in one respect. He implied that many of the people coming from the Macedonia area to Britain by way of the new

arrangements will want to stay, rather than go back. A few may, but the overwhelming evidence is that the vast majority of refugees from Kosovo are desperate to return to the homes from which they have been driven out by Milosevic's vile policy of ethnic cleansing. I am glad that there is such support across the House for the policy that we have adopted, which is, for all sorts of reasons, including those raised by the hon. Gentleman, to concentrate our humanitarian effort principally in the region, from which the refugees can most easily return to their own homes.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Government's policy is entirely consistent with the decency and fairness of the British people who will be glad to welcome a small number of people who have had the most appalling experience. Those sentiments will be shared in Prestwick and in Scotland generally, where the people have the same qualities.
As my right hon. Friend raised the issue of Macedonia and the simple fact that, on all the evidence, the overwhelming majority of refugees want to return to their homeland, will he encourage the appropriate Ministers to ensure a dialogue between the UNHCR and the Government of Macedonia, if only because there seems to be an unseemly desire to move refugees from Macedonia to Albania, which is already overstretched? If it is possible to contribute further resources, it would underline the excellent announcement—made, this very morning, by our own Department for International Development—that we are prepared to provide more funding.

Mr. Straw: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. We are not only encouraging a dialogue between the UNHCR and the Government of Macedonia, but—as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development tells me—we are facilitating it. Moreover, today, the Prime Minister will be talking about that exact issue with Mrs. Ogata of the UNHCR.

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on, although we shall undoubtedly very soon be returning to this business.

Points of Order

Mr. John Whittingdale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
During last week's debate on clause 2 of the Finance Bill, my hon. Friends and I pointed out that when the fuel escalator was introduced in 1993, United Kingdom petrol prices were among the lowest in Europe. In replying to the debate, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury stated that that was not correct, and that only Ireland and Denmark had higher petrol prices. I challenged her then, pointing out that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) had stated in his Budget speech that our petrol prices were lower than in any other major European country. She replied by saying that figures from the Library supported her case, and that not only was I wrong but my right hon. Friend had been wrong.
After the debate, I tabled a parliamentary question. I have now received the reply, with a letter from the Economic Secretary's office—although it is not signed by the Economic Secretary. In it, she states that she had inadvertently misread the figures, and that, in fact, I was right and she was wrong.
I have attempted to give the Economic Secretary notice of my intention of raising this point of order, but was able only to leave a message on the answering machine in her private office. Of course I accept that she did not intend to mislead the House. However, the issue is not a peripheral one: it is central to the debate on the Government's punitive increases in petrol duty.
Is it in order for a Minister to issue a correction simply through a written answer and by placing a letter in the Library? On a matter of this importance, should not the Minister come to the House and apologise in person?

Madam Speaker: The Minister has taken the correct course of action, in that, on 4 May, she corrected her statement in Hansard. On that same date, as the hon. Gentleman has said, she wrote to him expressing her regret for her inadvertent error. As soon as the matter was brought to the hon. Lady's attention, she took action in two ways—to correct it, and to inform the House by means of the Official Report.

Football Regulator

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a regulator for professional football.
The regulator would have powers to establish a code of conduct for football clubs; to set performance targets for clubs on a variety of issues; to call clubs to account for alleged breach of the code; and to gain access to any evidence from clubs, including financial and ticket sales records. The regulator would report to the appropriate Department, and would be independent of any vested interest.
Football is a part of the nation's identity: its roots in our communities and its developments are an integral part of our cultural heritage. Football is the source and topic of many conversations up and down the land, and it is no exaggeration to say that, occasionally, it affects the United Kingdom's productivity.
Football speaks a universal language, bringing nations and people of all races together —even in disagreement on the merits of a particular player or team, or even of a referee's decision.
Football also plays a major role in the House, as witnessed by the excellent work of the all-party football group—which is expertly chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—not to mention the exploits of the parliamentary football team. [Interruption.] Perhaps it is better not to mention those exploits.
As football is so embedded in our society, our paramount priority should be to protect and enhance its future. Recognising that priority, the Government created the football task force.
We cannot allow the ownership of and responsibility for professional football to be left in the hands of those who seek to exploit it financially or for some personal kudos at the expense of supporters. There is a clear need to address important issues such as ticket pricing, club ownership, plc status and merchandising policies. Clubs have every right to make a healthy profit, but not at the expense of fans. There is a difference between profit and profiteering. Our big clubs in particular should be seen to act in a more responsible and accountable way to ensure a greater and more equitable redistribution of wealth throughout the game, and proper financial regulation.
Many of our fine new stadiums, large and small, are the focal point of local communities and have received considerable investment from the public purse. There is an enormous vacuum of power following recent sackings and financial irregularities. Hon. Members on both sides who have the best interests of the game at heart agree that there are huge concerns about the governance of football.
Football is not just an industry. It is more associated with the National Gallery and St. Paul's than with BP and ICI. It is a national treasure, not a device for squeezing money out of customers who face a monopoly. If clubs raise prices too dramatically, the customer does not just go somewhere else. Support is total and usually a legacy handed down from generation to generation. We have to be careful about who can own clubs and the motivation driving those who run the game. This is an issue of


business interest versus public interest. Is it right that media interests or leisure interests should have outright control?
Football's present direction towards the demands of shareholders rather than fans has created an uneasy climate in which a small number of rich clubs will get richer while poorer clubs go to the wall. Already this season we have seen many clubs in deep financial crisis, including Doncaster, Brighton and Hove Albion, Oxford, Crystal Palace, Hull City and Portsmouth. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), whose leadership has helped the community in the revitalisation of Brighton and Hove Albion football club.
Soaring wage bills—fuelled by an incredible 40 per cent. increase in players' wages —and extraordinary transfer fees have added to the immense pressure of the need to succeed at all costs. There are many examples of good practice. A lot could be learned from what has happened at Northampton Town and Bournemouth, where supporters trusts have been set up to enable supporters to be involved in the running and accountability of their clubs. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke), who is a director of Northampton Town—a club which was recently congratulated on having the best access and facilities in the country for people with disabilities, as well as an equal opportunities policy.
The football regulator would be charged with the responsibility of presiding over the financial integrity of clubs. It could also investigate genuine complaints about ticket pricing policy and the cost and frequency of issue of replica kits. The regulator would also be involved in helping the game to clean up its image as regards transfer fees and the role of agents. That element of the game involves millions of pounds, and many fans are concerned that the lack of transparency damages the well-being of football.
Those who argue against regulation and say that football should be left to put its own house in order must prove that they have all the game's interests at heart. Self-regulation has not kept pace with the modern game; hence the creation of the task force. It was left to the Popplewell and Taylor reports to make recommendations on ground safety after the Bradford City fire disaster and the Hillsborough tragedy. The 1990 Taylor report was damning about the governance of the game.
We are developing all-seater stadiums, but the investment to achieve that has had to come through bodies such as the Football Trust, involving public funds. The massive revenues from television and media rights were not prioritised for the benefit of spectators. Without the Taylor recommendations, it is unlikely that ground improvements would ever have taken place.
The all-party football group has received representations from all aspects of football and there is a genuine desire to see the game progress. The group made representations on the Manchester United/BSkyB bid. Those representations showed that the receipts of one Manchester United home game were bigger than two years' income for smaller clubs such as Darlington or Hartlepool. That cannot be good for the game. While I wish Manchester United every success in the FA cup, the European cup final and the championship, their success

must not come at the expense of smaller clubs who develop young players and keep football available for ordinary supporters. There should be a more equitable redistribution of the plentiful resources at the top of the game for clubs throughout the football league and beyond.
Football has tremendous power to do good in society and can be used to help reduce crime and promote positive education policies. If the game is to continue to thrive, football must be allowed to develop at grassroots level in schools and junior teams. Figures show a reduction in the number of amateur teams, and school football is running into difficulty. My own schools association in Bradford is in desperate need of financial support. It is through those bodies that future stars will emerge.
The balance of big and small is an integral part of football's attraction, and to damage that balance would affect the whole market. Football is more than just an industry, but like many other industries, there is a need for sensible regulation to prevent anti-competitive practices and the emergence of elitist cartels. I am not alone in calling for action, as there have been many academic reports and press articles to that effect. Many organisations connected with football have recognised that self-regulation has not worked and that a regulator is now called for.
The Football Association, through FIFA, is responsible for the rules of the game, but it has failed miserably to protect and act in the best interests of all who support the game in many forms. It is now time to separate the regulatory function. The FA, rightly, should be responsible for the rules of the game, setting the criteria for membership, running competitions, overseeing player discipline and running the national side. However, it should hand over the scrutiny of clubs' finances and codes of conduct to an independent regulator.
The regulator would seek the assistance of a football industry committee, made up of bodies including the Football Supporters Association, the Football Association, the FA Premier League, the Football League, the Football Trust and the Professional Footballers Association. The separate regulatory function would ensure that the regulation of the financial, legal and commercial activities of clubs was seen as independent from vested interests.
There are many good people in football, and many who spend their lives putting great effort into developing football. Parochially, I congratulate my local club, Bradford City, its directors, management, staff and fans, who have worked together to improve the club's fortunes not only on the playing field, but in the running of the club's community activities. The club's success has raised the morale of the city. It is involved in Football in the Community, and is working with young people and the unemployed. It has established positive role models within the community, developed educational support and helped to kick out racism. Hopefully, the club will gain automatic promotion at the end of the week by beating Wolverhampton Wanderers.
The same tests that apply to other industries can be applied to football—issues such as monopoly control, serving the customer and what is and what is not a national asset—to preserve a healthy game from top to bottom. The Bill would seek to address those issues and many more affecting football at all levels. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, Mr. Tony Clarke, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Gillian Merron, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Ivan Henderson, Ann Keen, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Colin Burgon and Ms Joan Walley.

FOOTBALL REGULATOR

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe accordingly presented a Bill to establish a regulator for professional football: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 June, and to be printed [Bill 95].

Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority Bill

2ND ALLOTTED DAY

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Clause 144

ABOLITION

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 76, leave out line 31.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 35, in page 76, line 31, at beginning insert
`On the date of the first meeting of the Assembly under section 44(1) above,'.
Government amendments Nos. 85 to 92.
Government new clause 16—Transfers of LRT's property etc to Transport for London.
Government new clause 17—Functions during the transition from LRT to TfL.
Government new clause 18—Fares etc during the transitional period.
Government new clause 19—Continuity: repealed or revoked functions of LRT.
Government new clause 20—Transfer of former functions of London Transport Executive.
Government new clause 21—Dissolution of London Regional Transport.
Government new clause 22—Interpretation of Chapter XIV.

Ms Jackson: The new clauses and amendments provide for a staged transfer of functions and undertakings from London Transport to Transport for London. Mindful of the importance to Londoners of our underground system, the Government's policy will preserve the elements of the existing system that tube users value: a single public sector operating company; unified planning; the integration of services; unified ticketing; and the retention of travelcard in the public sector.
The public-private partnership will address the root cause of most problems with the network—past underfunding and underinvestment—by bringing in substantial private sector funds to improve the services, providing greater reliability; refurbished stations; improved trains; upgraded signalling; faster journey times; and greatly improved access for disabled people. There will be real local democratic accountability via the mayor, who will have ultimate responsibility for the underground.
The Government intend to hand over the underground to the mayor knowing that all those benefits have been secured. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear on Second Reading that once the public-private partnership process was under way,


the Government would see it through to completion. London Transport will remain in existence under ministerial sponsorship until the PPP contracts are let.
After 3 July 2000, for a transitional period, Transport for London and London Transport will exist in parallel. On completion of the PPP the mayor will be responsible. A full explanatory paper has been provided, setting out what will happen during the transitional period.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister said that the Government's proposals ensure full democratic accountability. Is it still the Government's intention that the new governing body for London will have no say in the system for which it will be accountable?

Ms Jackson: I am somewhat perplexed by that question, because I have made it abundantly clear that after the completion of the public-private partnership, responsibility for Transport for London, which will include every aspect of public transport in London, will lie with the mayor. I can think of no greater democratic transparency or credibility than that the individual who will be responsible for London's integrated transport should have been placed in that high office by the people of London.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister is still ducking the question. Will she confirm that it is still the Government's policy that the mayor and the assembly will have no say in the transport system—with the financial arrangements and those between the private and the public sector—for which they will be accountable? They will be told that they have to run it, but they will have had no opportunity to influence the arrangement that has been made.

Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is leaping ahead to amendments that we will debate later. Should the PPP not have reached completion before the mayor is in office, there will clearly have to be close co-operation and consultation with the mayor. If the hon. Gentleman is attempting to refloat the argument that has informed the majority of Liberal Democrat contributions to our debate—that not the mayor but the assembly should be the executive arm of the GLA—let me repeat that it is as hollow today, given our clear commitment to the structure of the GLA, as when it was first voiced in Committee.
We have repeatedly made it clear that the PPP negotiations will not take place against a self-imposed deadline. That would obviously compromise the Government's ability to achieve best value. No one will be surprised to hear that we cannot accept amendment No. 35, which would set an arbitrary date for the dissolution of London Transport. New clauses 16 to 22 and amendments Nos. 84 to 92 will allow us to implement our policies. The new clauses will form a new chapter to part IV of the Bill: chapter XIV.
New clauses 16 and 19 to 22 are intended to replace clauses 144 to 147 in the latest print of the Bill. They allow for the staged transfer of LT's undertaking and functions to TfL. Amendments Nos. 84 to 92 are consequential and would simply remove clauses 144 to 147 and replace any references to them.
New clause 16 makes it clear that the staged transfer will be implemented under the general transfer powers in part XII of the Bill.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am interested in the question of stages. Will the Minister comment on the suggestion in the Evening Standard of Wednesday 28 April that the delay in transferring the semi-privatised, private finance initiative infrastructure of the tube to Transport for London will cost the Treasury so much that fares will have to go up by 30 per cent. to meet the shortfall? Is that figure correct?

Ms Jackson: Neither the story nor the figure is correct. Despite what has appeared not only in the Evening Standard but in other organs of the press, such stories are mere speculation. We have made it abundantly clear that the process—a public-private partnership, not semi-privatisation or, indeed, a private finance initiative, as the hon. Gentleman implied—is on course.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Jackson: If I may, I shall finish my response to the question of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The fantastic fares cited in newspapers are absurd.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister says that the story, which was properly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), is not correct. The point is that it is not a story; it is a report by Chantrey Vellacott, a well-known and respected firm of accountants, which calculates that if the Government's plans for the PPP continue as they have set out, fares will need to rise by 30 per cent. to pay for them. There is no speculation. That is the opinion of people who know much about the subject—dare I say more than either the Minister or me?

Ms Jackson: I am perfectly prepared to accept that most people know more about this than the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly rebut the idea that I am as ignorant as he claims. It is not for me—or, I presume, the hon. Gentleman—to define a sense of pique that may rest in the bosom of one firm of accountants which had no part in the detailed examination of the proposals that informed the Government's policy on PPP. I repeat that such stories are mere speculation; they are not founded on any sort of fact; they are mere scaremongering. I wish that I were surprised that the official Opposition had participated in such scaremongering stories, but I regret that it is somewhat par for their particular course.
New clause 17 sets up a legal framework in which both London Transport and Transport for London will have the necessary powers and duties that they will need to run their respective public passenger transport services during the period when both are in existence. For the duration of the transition, London Transport, the mayor and Transport for London will also be under a duty to consult and co-operate with each other for the following transitional purposes: ensuring that public passenger transport services are not disrupted, securing the PPP agreement and transferring the property, rights and liabilities of London Transport to Transport for London.


New clause 18 places a duty on the mayor to have regard to the financial and other interests of London Transport when setting the general level and structure of fares for London Transport, or negotiating the concessionary fares agreement on behalf of LT.
New clause 19 provides for Transport for London to take over LT's legal liabilities. New clause 20 is necessary owing to the eventual repeal of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, in order that Transport for London should inherit certain necessary powers from LT. New clause 21 allows the Secretary of State to dissolve LT by order when all its property, rights and liabilities have been transferred. New clause 22 defines two of the major terms used in new clauses 16 to 21. 1 commend the new clauses to the House.

Mr. Ottaway:: I will not drag the debate down to the Minister's level.
This group of amendments relate to the transfer of London Underground to the authority. They are necessary only as a result of the shambles that the Government are in over their plans to transfer London Transport's undertakings to the new authority. They have no idea how they will get there, no idea where they are coming from, and no idea of the finished project. The Minister takes the biscuit when she says that the process is clear and easy for everybody to understand and that no one is as bright and intelligent as she is. I am sorry, but we are simply not as gullible as that.
In response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the Minister talked about whether the public-private partnership would be ready. The only reason why the amendments and new clauses have been tabled is that the PPP will not be ready. If she thought that it would be, there would be no need for the amendments because the transfer could be completed before the elections next year.
4.30 pm
The Minister said that the Government refuse to be tied to a deadline for the transfer because they want to achieve best value. I have to say that that is a pretty good line, but it does not fly. The Minister is not tied into a deadline because she has no idea when she will be able to reach her conclusions about setting up the PPP and when it will be transferred.
We have an awful lot to say about the PPP and its transfer, and about the nature of London Underground and its relationship with the new authority. I shall not waste the House's time by saying it all twice, so I shall save my remarks for the next group of amendments, which relate directly to the PPP rather than to the transitional arrangements.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We started considering a Bill whose original clause 144 is very simple and which states:
London Regional Transport shall cease to exist.
We assumed that that would happen when the Bill became law, or at least when the Bill was implemented as an Act. In other words, LRT would cease to exist on the day the Act took effect. That was always the proposition, and the presumption.
In Committee, Liberal Democrat Members, with the Conservatives, explored the issue. We discovered that Alice, from "Alice in Wonderland", had walked across the

Bill, in that clause 144 now meant that London Regional Transport shall not cease to exist. The reason was that the Government had decided, in the period since the Bill was published, that they would have to keep it going. We asked how long LRT would exist before ceasing to exist, but answer came there none.
The Government new clauses that are to substitute for the original—and very simple—clause 144 are hugely longer. They propose a set of transitional provisions that do not say when that transition will begin or end. As the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said, it became apparent that the plan had run into the sidings—or at least into a tunnel—and that the Government are not willing to reveal what is really going on.
We are willing to let the Government tell us that they are on target for the timetable set out on Second Reading by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. My questions relate to what he told us on Second Reading on 14 December, and to the Government's proposals in the amendments.
The timetable set out on Second Reading is the precondition to the public-private partnership. The Secretary of State said that London Regional Transport would be restructured in the first half of 1999 into an operating division and three infrastructure divisions. My understanding is that that has happened. He added that the aim would be to invite expressions of interest from infrastructure bidders early in 1999. It is understood that the invitation went out and that some people have responded. Will the Minister confirm that the date by which people were asked to express an interest has passed? Are all the expressions of interest that have been considered now with the Government? Even if she is not at liberty to say who has expressed an interest, will the Minister say how many such expressions were received?
I understand that the Government intend the Bill to be enacted by the summer. Will the Minister say when the Government propose to start the transfer referred to in new clause 16, which will allow the Secretary of State to set up programmes for transferring London Regional Transport's property, assets or functions? What is the first date for such a transfer?
Can the Minister say what is the last date by which the Government intend London Regional Transport' s property, obligations, assets and so on to be transferred?

Mr. Edward Davey: Bet she can't.

Mr. Hughes: I am not willing to take that bet because I do not believe anyone could win it. I understand, but I am willing to be proved wrong, that the Government do not yet know.
Government new clause 21 says that LRT will be dissolved by the Secretary of State when he or she is satisfied that all functions have been adequately transferred. Does that mean under the current Government? Would it be in the next Government's period in office, or the one after that? Does it require the Labour party to be in office for a generation, or two? May we have some idea?
To their credit, the Government faced the electorate on certain specific pledges. For example, taking 100,000 off the waiting lists was an early pledge. We are still waiting,
as it has not yet been quite delivered, but other pledges were made, and all of them were given time frames. What is the time frame for this one?
Finally, I was not surprised to hear the Minister say that she was not minded to accept amendment No. 35. We took a simple view that anyone who believed in devolving power and responsibility for London transport to the new government for London should transfer responsibility to that new government once it had been set up. There is nothing complicated about that idea. It resembles tomorrow's Scottish elections, in that the plan is that once the people of Scotland have voted for their Parliament, power over a range of matters will be transferred to Scotland in a few weeks, which the Liberal Democrats welcome. The same applies in Wales.
We had understood, naively perhaps, that when the Government said that they would, from next July, set up a new Greater London assembly, then once elected, the new mayor and deputy mayor would assume responsibility. When London government returns next year it will be welcome because many of us believe that there should be democratic government. However, will it or will it not take on responsibility then for London transport?
If the answer to that question is no, a whole raft of proposals for the work that the London government will do will become theoretical. It will have work to do, but the proposition that it will take over transport clearly will not come to pass. If the Government cannot tell us by which date the new underground system will be handed over—whether or not the new mayor and assembly should have a say in its form—the election campaign will be interesting. Mayoral candidates will produce policies for running a transport system that they may not be able to run during their entire term of office.
That is Alice in Wonderland politics. People are invited to stand for election to run London transport, but may not be given that prize before leaving office four years later. That is nonsense. The Government would do us all a service by loosening the apron strings and not being the nanny state. They must allow the mayor and the assembly, whoever they are, to take responsibility and to be accountable. If they do a wonderful job, they will be applauded. If they do a bad job, they will be kicked out. But if we are to have devolution, let us have it, not never-neverland, say-one-thing-and-do-another politics that replaces the simple proposition that LRT will go with clauses saying that it might be with us for the rest of our lives.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Only rarely do I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Rather more often, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). Today, I may speak briefly because they have spoken exactly as I would have wished to. The amendments would transfer responsibility from "London Regional Transport" to "Transport for London". It is no great radical leap in terms of the words used.
I accept what the Government intend to do, but I do not agree with it. Of all the amendments that have ever been proposed to a Bill, these Government amendments represent the most radical changes to the Bill as originally

published. Vast changes are to be made to the Bill that the Government presented to the House: almost every amendment begins, "Leave out", and proceeds to delete chunks of text, in addition to which there are seven new Government clauses in this group. Talk about politics on the hoof—the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey might have got lost in the tunnel, but the train appears to have gone off the rails.
The reason is simple: the Government realise that investment in London's transport is desperately needed, even though, goodness knows, investment increased dramatically under the previous Government. In the 1970s, the average level of investment in London transport was less than £50 million a year, whereas in the 1990s, the average was more than £500 million a year, and the figure is even higher today—but, whatever the sum, it is never enough. The reason for that is chronic underinvestment—especially in the underground system—during the 1950s and 1960s, when fewer people started to use the underground.
The only practical, realistic way in which to get investment for the London underground system—indeed, for London's transport as a whole—is privatisation. However, the Government do not like the word "privatisation" and, because their pre-election speeches were all about what an awful thing privatisation is, for the past two years they have been desperately searching for an alternative form of words that will enable them to get what they want without having to announce it to the country. Instead of "private finance initiative", they have come up with "public-private partnership". However, I have to tell them that, if the public-private partnership does not have control over assets, it will not put in the investment—it is as simple as that.
To return to the theme that I introduced yesterday, it is clear that what has been devolved to the people of London is a sham. The hon. Member for Southwark and North Bermondsey—sorry, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey; I suffer from dyslexia at this time of day—was absolutely right to say that there is to be no real devolution to the people of London. He mentioned that the Scots would be voting for their new Parliament tomorrow. The population of Scotland is 5 million, whereas there are 7 million people in London, but what the Government are not devolving to London is an insult when seen in comparison with what is to be devolved to the people of Scotland. London devolution is a sham—the Government's policy is all shadow and no substance. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South in resisting the amendments.

Mr. Wilkinson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish that you had been in Committee when the Government dropped the bombshell that London Regional Transport would have to continue and that Transport for London could not assume the assets of London Transport underground because the public-private partnership, on which had been predicated all the Labour Government's fine plans for modernising the tube, would not now or in the foreseeable future go ahead. That little statement was slipped into our proceedings, and the Minister might have been surprised at the uproar that it caused. However, the fact that the uproar was justified can be seen in the scale and scope of Government amendments Nos. 84 to 92 and, above all, Government new clauses 16 to 22.


As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) so eloquently explained, there can be few occasions in recent parliamentary history when such vast tracts of a major Bill have had to be completely rewritten. More than that, the Labour party's manifesto for London at the general election should have been rewritten. It is demonstrably a fraudulent document.
4.45 pm
On transport matters, I think that The Times is normally fairly sympathetic to the Government's transport proposals. In an article in the business section on Tuesday 4 May, it postulated that the tube sell-off faces delay until after the next general election. The article written by the transport correspondent, Arthur Leathley, states:
The sell-off of London Underground is now so badly bogged down in a funding row between the Treasury and the Department of Transport and doubts over the availability of private finance that it will almost certainly have to be delayed until after the general election.
The article continues:
Officials now concede that the private sector cannot take over the project until at least the spring 2001. But this is viewed by many observers as the likely date of the general election.
That is a year after the election for the Greater London Authority. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, the election campaign will be transformed by this fact, with candidates postulating policies for a potentially nugatory role. We are talking about the Greater London Authority integrating London's transport, including the tube; manifestly, in respect of the underground services, it will not be able to carry that out.
Notwithstanding that background, transitional arrangements are set out in the new clauses. I am glad that this is so. However, I think that the general public will be more worried about the funding gap than technical transitional arrangements. The failure in finding private finance means that the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab. It was imagined that leases of 25 years for the running of the tube's infrastructure would allow modernisation to take place over the first 15 years, and that private sector moneys would be available. Those moneys will not be available. The Treasury subsidies will be withdrawn from the beginning of the next financial year. They amount to about £350 million, and are badly needed by the underground management.
Who will make good the difference and see through the transition which will lead eventually, one hopes, to the assumption by Transport for London of its rightful role, ultimately taking responsibility for the tube? If the answer is the travelling public, they will be extremely upset. Conservative candidates will certainly highlight the additional risk that London commuters will have to pick up the tab in the election campaign unless the Government are able to say now that the Treasury will make good the difference and that the fears of some of us are wholly unrealistic.
There is one ray of hope which may change the transition schedule. It is the suggestion that I have read in the press today that Railtrack will assume responsibility for the running of the infrastructure of London Transport underground. If that is the case and a white knight such as Railtrack is to emerge at the 11th hour, I suppose that that is potentially good news. However, such a move

would take away the element of competition that we had imagined was at least possible under the Government's arrangements. It will be a monopoly system. Whether that accords with what the Government have in mind, only the Government can say.
It is clear from the Report stage today that the Government have let the electorate of London down on one of the foremost elements of their 1997 election campaign. For the past two years, until the Standing Committee proceedings in March, the Government have not come clean and admitted that the transfer of the underground to Transport for London will not take place in the foreseeable future. Even now, the Government cannot give a date when Transport for London will assume the responsibilities that everyone expected it to take over on 3 July 2000. That is an admission by the Government of their failure to be candid with the electorate and to administrate on a central plank of their transport policy for London.

Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as he is developing a powerful case. Is not the situation especially serious in the light of the 36 per cent. increase in tube breakdowns since the general election. and the 20,000 breakdowns on the London Underground tube network over the past 12 months alone?

Mr. Wilkinson: As ever, my hon. Friend has the facts at his fingertips. The House is grateful to him for the knowledge that he brings to these matters. The figures that he quoted demonstrate how essential is the new investment that the Government promised would occur through the public-private partnership. That will not happen unless the Treasury provides the funds. There is no indication in any Government document that I have seen from the Treasury, in any of the press speculation or in any of the commentaries in the transport press that the Exchequer is prepared to make good the difference.
That being so, the network will continue to deteriorate, the breakdowns will become more numerous and possibly more severe and, above all, the passenger is likely to have to pay more. That is the end result of Labour Government failure. The travelling public should be aware of the facts, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity to make plain these unpleasant realities.

Ms Glenda Jackson: That was one of the most fascinating contributions that I have been privileged to hear in the Chamber. Member after Member of the official Opposition expressed bemusement at the Government's proposals with regard to the transition from London Transport to Transport for London. I find it hard to believe in their bemusement, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister stated in the House on Second Reading that there would indeed be a transitional period.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) clearly does not understand the complexity of the London underground. We are not selling a train set. We have the dread lesson of the experience of watching his Government enter into rail privatisation. They were so driven by a date, and by the desperate desire to offload a problem that they had neither the imagination nor the energy to tackle, that they cost the country billions of pounds. They sold off national assets for a fraction of their real worth, they fragmented an integrated railway system


into 100 separate operations, and now they have the audacity to suggest that we should follow that disastrous example in pursuit of an empty date.
Our objective is to provide the best value and to ensure that adequate funding to modernise London's underground is brought into place, after more than a decade of lamentable stewardship by the previous Administration.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) expressed similar bemusement. I have a clear recollection that he was in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement. The hon. Gentleman asked questions with regard to the state of the public-private partnership. I can tell him that there have been no expressions of interest, and none has been invited. There have been no invitations for pre-qualification. There has been great interest from the private sector, as I have had occasion to say before in the House.
I also took on board the hon. Gentleman's point about Alice in Wonderland, because I was strongly reminded during his contribution of the White Rabbit desperately consulting a watch and crying all the time, "I'm late, I'm late!" He also seems to believe that the Government should be driven by some artificially imposed end date. That is not the way to produce the best possible value and the best possible results for the people of London in respect of the underground.
All official Opposition Members who spoke were bemused at what the situation will be, but the Government, through the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on Second Reading, made that abundantly clear. However, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) was quite right. We are introducing radical and reforming changes, and there is a clear and desperate need for investment, as I have already had occasion to say, because of the previous Administration's lamentable stewardship of London Underground and because of their grievous lack of investment for at least a decade-not because of a lack of investment between the '50s and '60s. If I remember correctly, the core funding for London Underground was halved in the 1996 Budget.
Nor do we come new to the idea of public-private partnership by virtue of being in government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been advocating public-private partnership for a considerable number of years—since well before the 1997 election.
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said that our proposals were a sham. I must tell him that the people of London voted for what the Government propose and they do not perceive our proposals as a sham. They perceive that there has to be a means of attracting adequate investment to ensure that the tube, which is one of the arteries of London, can maintain its proper place in moving them around this great city.

Sir Sydney Chapman: All I ask the Minister to do when she returns to her Department is check out the facts. In the 1970s, the average investment in London Transport as a whole—90 or 95 per cent. of which went on the London underground—was under £50 million a year. The Conservative Government brought that figure up, from 1979 to the 1990s, to £500 million a year or more. Indeed,

the figure was about £750 million when we left office. Does she remember that? If she is disparaging what she calls the "lamentable" performance of the previous Government—that beggars belief—what on earth would be her epitaph for the previous Labour Government?
Will the Minister remember one other thing? She condemns the way in which we privatised the railways, but does she admit that, thanks to privatisation, the fares of the railway companies are less in real terms than they were before privatisation? The fares on the London underground have gone up way beyond inflation.

Ms Jackson: The most recent fare rise on the London underground was not way above inflation. I believe that it was 3 per cent., which is a marked contrast to the fare increases under the previous Administration. From 1986 to 1996, fares rose by an astronomical 38 per cent. in real terms.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the investment made by the previous Government; the core funding figures from 1994 to 1997 show £399 million, £462 million, £251 million and £175 million. One of our first acts on taking office was finding an additional £365 million for London Underground, which ensured for two financial years that it had more than £1 billion to carry out necessary modernisation and the rolling back of necessary work on the underground. The failures of the previous Administration meant that, year on year on year, London Underground had been incapable of doing such work—it was impossible for it to plan.

Mr. Keith Darvill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the investment figures quoted by the Opposition include investment in the Jubilee line and investment required to resolve the problems arising from the King's Cross disaster?

5 pm

Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The figures that I just read out, to stunned silence on the Opposition Benches, exclusively related to the core funding. They excluded the Jubilee line extension costs to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Minister has taken just one particular part of the funding. If she looks at the total funding, she will find that the figures are very different from those that she quoted. Will she confirm that, for the 10 years from 1987 to 1997, the previous Government invested an average of some £700 million per annum, whereas, under the Labour Government, the average has been £500 million?

Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman can move the figures backwards and forwards as much as he likes; the fact remains that the core funding over the period to which he refers was reduced by the previous Administration. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. One has only to look at the state of the London underground when we came to office. Over 18 years, no major improvements were made in the core investment necessary to maintain one of London's vital arteries.

Mr. Ottaway: It is important that we clarify this point, and I can think of no better authority than the


Department's annual report for 1999. May I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 13(d) on London transport investment? Unfortunately, the figures start at 1993–94 and run for the six years to 1999–2000. I say "unfortunately", because the figures would be even more impressive if they went back further than 1993. In 1993–94, the core business was £520 million; in 1994–95, it was £554 million; and, in 1995–96, it was £589 million—compared with the figures for 1998–99 and 1999–2000, which were £394 million and—

Ms Jackson: What about the intervening years?

Mr. Ottaway: The intervening years were better still: 1996–97 was the only year in the last decade when that figure fell below £400 million.

Ms Jackson: Half.

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) is absolutely right. The level of investment over the past decade has been, on average, £700 million per annum. The source for that information is the submission by London Underground to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. The Minister is responsible for London Underground, but she may not know what her own organisation is saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The amendments are on the specific subject of transition, but we are now discussing investment, funding and the record of previous Governments. There must be a narrower discussion on the amendments before us.

Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I simply say that, if the previous Administration were so committed to maintaining and modernising London Underground, I find it somewhat surprising that their only response was to sell it off?
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred to the speculative stories that have been appearing in the London press. He referred in particular to one in The Times. I am sure that he is aware that it was virtually a rerun of a similar speculative story that appeared in the Financial Times several weeks ago.
The hon. Gentleman was also much concerned about what he perceives as a funding gap before the public-private partnership for London Underground is completed. We have made it abundantly clear, both inside and outside the House, that we are cognisant of the importance of London Underground and would never, ever allow it to fall into what Opposition Members have called a black hole.

Mr. Wilkinson: The phrase "a black hole" has a resonance with the general public, who are genuinely and rightly concerned. Did the Minister not admit in the Standing Committee that, for the transitional period at least, passengers on the London tube would have to continue to pay fare rises over and above the rate of inflation? She said that that would be the case for the foreseeable future—we have no date.
What will happen during the transitional period between the assumption by the Greater London Authority of its responsibility and the assumption by Transport for

London of its intended responsibility for London Transport underground? The Exchequer has made no provision for the necessary investment. Does she have any figures with which she can reassure the House and the travelling public?

Ms Jackson: That is not what I said in Committee about fares. I referred to the fare modelling on which the public-private partnership was based, and said that the modelling assumed a fare increase of the retail prices index plus one for the years 2000 and 2001 and, after that, the assumption was RPI plus zero. The general public in London can be in no doubt about the importance that the Government attach to London Underground. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect to say that the public are fearful.
One of the first actions that we took when we came to office was to provide an additional £365 million for London Underground. There is no way in which we would not continue to ensure that this vital part of London's public transport system serves the people of London. It will be the mayor's responsibility to set fares.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to a story that has appeared in the newspapers about Railtrack—it is again somewhat fantastical. It is interesting that that story has prompted a statement from the TubeRail Consortium, which says:
TubeRail remain as committed now to the London Underground PPP process as we have since it started—along with a number of other consortia.
We have some very innovative proposals which will bring real benefits to London's passengers as well as offering best value to the taxpayer.
Like the Government we believe strongly in a competitive process which will ensure the real value of bidders' proposals is properly tested. A single hid for the network would not deliver that.
The TubeRail Consortium comprises Alstom, Amec, Brown and Root and Tarmac Construction.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not know how near the Minister is to the end of her speech, and I assume that she will deal in a minute with the specific questions that I asked her about the beginning and the end of the transition. I want to make sure that she will give us an answer on a matter that she touched on. She said that no expressions of interest have yet been sought. On 14 December last year, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
The aim will be to invite expressions of interest from potential infrastructure bidders early next year."—[Official Report, 14 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 630.]
What is now the timetable, given that we are in May and, by most definitions, "early next year" must be running out?

Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman clearly enjoys playing the White Rabbit. He is obsessed with time. Every time he gets to his feet, all he needs is the prop of the watch. I shall repeat what I said to him earlier: there have been no invitations from anyone to anyone for expressions of interest. The process is one of pre-qualification. The first stage of pre-qualification will be due later this spring. London Transport published a progress report on 15 March, and I repeat that there is great private sector interest in the public-private partnership. I have just read out the statement made today by TubeRail.

Mr. Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jackson: If I may, I should like to finish responding to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. We have made it abundantly clear that we will not be driven by an artificial date; we will be driven only by that which is in the best interests of the public and will deliver best value.

Mr. Sayeed: The Minister says that she will not be driven by an artificial date, but a date is already specified in the proposals: that date is May 2000. According to Treasury figures, there will be no subsidy after May 2000. The fact is that the Government are well behind their plans for public-private partnerships. If PPP does not come about by the specified date, how will the Minister fund the tube?

Ms Jackson: May 2000 is important because that is when the mayor and the assembly will be elected in London. The hon. Gentleman should note that we are discussing amendments and new clauses that will bring about the transition from London Regional Transport to Transport for London. There is no date for when PPP will be completed, because, as I have said, the Government will not be driven by the artificial end dates that, as far as the people were concerned, proved such a disaster under Administrations hell-bent on rail privatisation.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jackson: No.
Those end dates cost the people an enormous amount. They were a gross waste of national assets. This Government are driven by a wish to provide best value for the taxpayer, and they will deliver the best of all possible values in terms of investment in London Underground.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Ms Jackson: Now I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bercow: If the Government are untroubled by dates, why, at the end of last year, did the Deputy Prime Minister blunder into talking about invitations for expressions of interest early this year—and why is it now necessary for his junior colleague to rescue him?

Ms Jackson: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister never blunders. I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
I believe that I have answered all the questions put to me. I commend the amendments and new clauses.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 145

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ETC TO THE AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 85, in page 76, leave out lines 32 to 39.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 146

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 76, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 on page 77.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 147

CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES IN LOCAL AND PERSONAL ACTS

Amendment made: No. 87, in page 77, leave out lines 24 to 26.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 171

PPP AGREEMENTS

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 88, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 98.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 22, in page 88, line 24, leave out 'must not' and insert 'may'.
Amendment No. 23, in page 88, line 25, leave out 'must not' and insert 'may'.
Amendment No. 24, in page 88, leave out lines 27 to 29.
Government new clause 37—The PPP arbiter.
Government new clause 38—Terms of appointment etc of the PPP arbiter.
Government new clause 39—Staff of the PPP arbiter.
Government new clause 40—Directions of the PPP arbiter.
Government new clause 41—Guidance by the PPP arbiter.
Government new clause 42—Duty of PPP arbiter.
Government new clause 43—Further powers of the PPP arbiter.
Government new clause 44—Provision of information to the PPP arbiter.
Government new clause 45—Immunity of PPP arbiter.
Government new clause 46—Expenses of the PPP arbiter.
New clause 3—Funding and Management of London Underground—
`The Mayor shall not be bound by any Public Private Partnership entered into by London Regional Transport or Transport for London and shall be free to enter into any method of funding and management of London Underground including a long lease of management, maintenance, replacement of rolling stock and operation to a private contractor.'.
New clause 5—Public interest company if PPP agreement not signed—
`(1) If no PPP agreement has been signed by 1st July 2000, the Mayor and Assembly shall be permitted to establish a public interest company as defined by subsection (2) below.


(2) In this Chapter "public interest company" means a company—

(a) a majority of whose issued shares are held by or on behalf of any of the bodies or persons falling within paragraphs (i) to (iv) below;

(i) any Minister of the Crown, Government department or other emanation of the Crown;
(ii) any local authority;
(iii) any metropolitan county passenger transport authority;
(iv) any body corporate whose members are appointed by a Minister of the Crown, a Government department, a local authority or a metropolitan county passenger authority or by a body corporate whose members are so appointed;

(b) in which the majority of the voting rights are held by or on behalf of any of the bodies or persons in subsection (2)(a) above;
(c) a majority of whose board of directors can be appointed or removed by any of the bodies or persons in subsection (2)(a) above;
(d) in which the majority of the voting rights are controlled by any of the bodies or persons in subsection (2)(a) above, pursuant to an agreement with other persons; or
(e) a subsidiary of a company falling within subsections (a) to (d) above.

(3) The public interest company may borrow money for investing in transport in Greater London.'.
New clause 9—Public interest company if PPP agreement not signed(No.2)—
'.—(1) If no PPP agreement has been signed by the date of enactment of this Act, the Mayor and Assembly shall be authorised to establish a public interest company as defined by subsection (2) below to take over from London Underground Limited.
(2) In this Chapter "public interest company" means a company—

(a) a majority of whose issued shares are held by or on behalf of any of the bodies or persons falling within paragraphs (i) to (iv) below:

(i) any Minister of the Crown, Government department or other emanation of the Crown;
(ii) any local authority;
(iii) any metropolitan county passenger transport authority;
(iv) any body corporate whose members are appointed by a Minister of the Crown, a Government department, a local authority or a metropolitan county passenger authority or by a body corporate whose members are so appointed;

(b) in which the majority of the voting rights are held by or on behalf of any of the bodies or persons in subsection (3)(a) above;
(c) a majority of whose board of directors can be appointed or removed by any of the bodies or persons in subsection (3)(a) above;
(d) in which the majority of the voting rights are controlled by any of the bodies or persons in subsection (3)(a) above, pursuant to an agreement with other persons; or
(e) a subsidiary of a company falling within subsections (a) to (d) above.

(3) The public interest company may borrow money for investing in transport in Greater London.'.

Mr. Ottaway: If anything illustrates the ideological battle at the heart of the Government, it is the delay, dither and lack of policy on London underground. The Government have learned how to use the language of the marketplace; they have learned how to pay lip service to the value of the private sector; but, when it comes to the

crunch and they have to face up to tough issues such as the future of London underground, they chicken out and return to their old Labour roots.
What party on earth other than the Labour party promises improvements to London underground in its manifesto, and then comes up with a scheme that offers less investment than was offered by their predecessors, and says that the solution is to leave London underground in the hands of its present management?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, the standards of London underground are slipping, and the problems have become increasingly acute during the past two years. The Department's own figures state that in 1994–95, more than 16,000 delays were caused by faults in rolling stock. That figure fell over the next few years, before rising to more than 20,000 this year. Signal failures are up, as are other track faults; breakdowns and signal failures are daily occurrences. Poor conditions, delays and people missing connections are a fact of life, and the Government are taking no positive action to improve the situation.
Since taking over the underground, the Government have cut investment. Table 13.d of their own annual report, to which I referred when we were discussing the previous group of amendments, shows a sharp fall in London Transport investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) pointed out, no investment has been announced for next year, and the Treasury is ordering the Deputy Prime Minister to take the money out of the road maintenance programme.
5.15 pm
In their last decade in office—which is increasingly looking like a golden era—the Conservative Government invested, at today's prices, £8 billion. We were the first to admit that that was not enough, and that we needed to bring in the private sector to secure extra investment. What is this Government's answer? A public-private partnership which will introduce £7 billion over 15 years. That is half a billion pounds a year, and about the same level of funding that the Government are providing at present as a temporary measure.
Why do the Government not admit that their plans for PPP are in a mess? As all the contractors involved are deeply wary of the Government's intentions, it now looks increasingly likely that the plan will not be up and running when the mayor takes office next summer, and quite likely that the funds will not be flowing by the summer of 2001. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred to a story in The Times yesterday, headed
Tube sell-off faces delay until after next election".
A whole Parliament will have gone by, and the Government will have failed to deliver on their pledges. The reason for their inability to deliver on their pledges is their inability to embrace the private sector, and to use it whenever necessary or whenever it can help.
It is well worth making a comparison with the privatised railways. The railways carry only a few more passengers per annum than the underground, but the differences in proposed levels of investment are startling. The state-owned underground can expect £7 billion over the next 15 years if it is lucky, and fares are rising. A recent report by the chartered accountants


Chantrey Vellacott, which was mentioned earlier, suggested that fares would have to rise by 30 per cent. to pay for the PPP. On the other hand, privatised rail fares are falling, and no less than £27 billion of investment has been pledged for the next 10 years.
I shall deal with the question of performance shortly; but what a contrast that is. The Government, however, say that PPP is the best way of attracting investment. Labour Members nod: they believe that. But what do others say? The London school of economics is not a stupid organisation. In a report prepared with the respected transport economists Glaister, Scanlon and Travers, published on 20 March, it says:
The Government's plan for the Public Private Partnership…for the Underground is flawed in principle, and impracticable. The long-term capital needs of the Underground are of paramount importance to London and to the future of its economy. Before it is too late, the Government should alter its plans and modify the GLA Bill to allow the new Mayor and Assembly the freedom to choose the best solution from amongst a range of available alternatives.

Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: I am still quoting. The report continues:
It is now apparent that the PPP as proposed will meet few of the promises made when it was announced exactly one year ago. The PPP threatens to impose burdensome long term pressures on Underground operating revenues, including the prospect of continually rising fares, in order to pay back up front investment by private contractors.

Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is quoting rather selectively from the academics' publication. If he read other parts, he would see that they back the idea of a public interest company, proposed by the Liberal Democrats and others in the capital. What they do not back is the privatisation option favoured by the Conservatives.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman says that I am quoting selectively. In fact, I have quoted the first two paragraphs. He is right in saying that the report suggests a number of options, but one is a long-term lease of the underground to a single contractor. I shall say more about that.

Mr. Davey: That is not privatisation.

Mr. Ottaway: I accept that, but a long-term lease to a single private contractor over, say, 99 years is not far off being a full-scale privatisation.

Mr. Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the option that he has just described is not the favoured option in the report? The favoured option is a public interest company.

Mr. Ottaway: I do not read that in the report. The academics do not express a favoured option; they put forward a number of options on an equal basis. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will get the report out and quote it in his speech.
The Government are failing in an ideological logjam. All the evidence of the past two decades is that privatisation works. All the companies that used to be at Labour's
commanding heights of the economy
are performing better in the private sector than they were in the public sector. It was not all straightforward, but no one suggests that companies such as British Airways, British Gas and the electricity boards would perform better back in the public sector. As the investment level in the railways comes through, the Government will soon be taking the credit for the performance of the railways as well; indeed, the language already seems to be moderating. Therefore, we urge the Government fully to embrace the private sector for London underground and to involve it in operations, as well as the infrastructure and management.
The annual report for 1999 from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions continues to make interesting reading. Against the background of falling investment that I have described, it says at paragraph 13.8:
The Government is setting London Underground quality of service targets to 2000–01…At the time of writing, London Underground was on target to meet three out of nine quality targets".
That is getting a bit off message. Such glossy documents are meant to be new Labour spin. If it thinks that failing on six out of nine quality targets is a success story, it has another think coming. The real point is that London Underground is currently making an operating profit of £250 million a year. If it can do that under the present management, while failing on two thirds of the quality targets, think what the private sector could do if the Government could get rid of their dogma and let it run the underground in the way in which it runs many former public services.
It is possible to make London underground viable; I know that the Government have trouble believing that. They said that privatising the railways would not attract investment. They were wrong, and they are wrong on their public-private partnership.
The Government will hang on to London underground until they have set up their PPP, but buses and roads will be transferred to the mayor next summer. It will be the first time since the 1920s that the buses and the underground have been under different management. It is not an integrated transport policy, but a disintegrated transport policy. The public are becoming increasingly aware of it.
The worst thing—it is a further point made by the London school of economics—is that the mayor will have no say in the best way in which to run the underground. In response to interventions from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the Minister said that, if the PPP was not ready by the time of the election, it was inevitable that the mayor would be involved. That does not seem to be a pledge of any sort, or perhaps I have read it wrongly. [Interruption.] The Minister says that it is a pledge.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman clearly misheard what I said from a sedentary position. It has been abundantly clear to everyone who takes an interest in these issues that we have consistently said that, if the PPP is not concluded by the time the mayor takes office,


as the mayor will eventually be responsible for the underground, clearly, the mayor will be involved in the discussions on the PPP.

Mr. Ottaway: What happens if the mayor has campaigned on a manifesto pledge not to accept the PPP?

Ms Jackson: I should think that any candidate who campaigned on a pledge not to ensure that the relevant levels were invested in the underground, to transform it into the modern underground that London needs, would stand little chance of winning the favour of the people of London.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister is in for a big surprise. The people of London will not welcome a £7 billion debt being landed round their necks, with the Deputy Prime Minister walking off into his next job and saying to the people of London, "You pay for it over the next 30 years." In Committee, the Minister said that she would be proud to introduce a congestion charge. No doubt she would be proud to lumber London with a £7 billion debt, but she has not answered my question: what would happen if the mayor were committed to a pledge not to accept the PPP?

Ms Jackson: I say again: I cannot believe that any serious candidate for the mayoralty of London would turn away from the only certainty of securing the relevant level of investment, over a sustainable period, to ensure that the underground could be modernised.

Mr. Ottaway: I know that the Minister is a wise and intelligent person, but just suppose for a second, on that narrow issue, that she is wrong. Let me soften the line slightly. Let us suppose that a mayor is elected who is not opposed to the PPP and who is committed to a transfer, but on different terms from those that have been proposed by the Government. Is the Minister saying that she would override the mayor, or that he would have the last word? Who would have the last word in those circumstances?

Ms Jackson: I have tried to shield the hon. Gentleman from the painful truth, but it is highly unlikely that anyone other than a Labour candidate will be elected as mayor for London. It is impossible to conceive of any Labour candidate not endorsing that imaginative and productive policy.

Mr. Ottaway: If a Minister ducks a question three times, it is clear that she does not know the answer. Frankly, she should not come here unless she knows the answers. She should brief herself better before she comes here. It is almost as bad as yesterday, when she said that a passenger in a taxi could order a taxi driver to put out his cigarette. There seems to be no evidence for that; she has not produced any. She just makes statements off the top of her head without thinking about it and without any background, support or information whatever.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend conclude that what the Minister has now confessed publicly is that the form of the Bill that the Government are offering the House will not cater for some of the most likely outcomes of the election?

Does he agree that that puts London in a most dangerous and unpredictable position, and means that we cannot now sensibly deal with the future of the underground?

Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. Friend is right. We have absolutely no idea where the Government are going. London underground is not a tin-pot organisation; it is a substantial part of London's economy. The Government have no vision, no idea, and no future for London underground which is coherent in any sense.
In our judgment, the mayor should have the last word. What the Government are proposing, with their interim transitional plans, is to negotiate a PPP, and then to dump it on to the people of London and walk away from it. As I have said, it is a £7 billion millstone hanging from the neck of the people of London.
There is a fourth way. The Government should consider pursuing a long-term leasing arrangement for London underground as an integrated operation with one private sector firm. There is a precedent for that: Eurotunnel has a lease on the channel tunnel until 2086. That was not negotiated by a Conservative Government; it was agreed by the present Government in December 1997. It is a model that would work admirably on the underground, with the authority as the landlord imposing terms in the lease, and with a regulator to keep an eye on performance. That is one of the many ways in which the potential of the private sector could be fully realised for the benefit of London underground. Best of all, that solution would impose no financial burdens on the new authority, it would satisfy the Treasury and would benefit London as a whole.
Last year, the Transport Sub-Committee looked at the Government's plans for a public-private partnership and described them as a "convoluted compromise". We have no reason to believe that the Committee was wrong. A PPP is not the best way forward. It must be dawning on the Government by now that they have got it wrong.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) started by talking about ideology and then exhibited a great deal of it. He wants to scrap the Government's proposals, which are really about countering the chronic under-investment in London underground during the Tory years. His solution in the amendment is wholesale privatisation, which simply negates the public service nature of the London underground. Only profit would matter. A few choice lines would run and the rest would be scrapped, regardless of public interest. The system would be unreliable and decline. Privatisation has already been thoroughly rejected by the London public, especially the travelling public.
Only last week, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said that the Conservative party wanted to change the public perspective of it as being about privatisation, particularly in terms of essential public services. Like that famous lager, he has not reached all parts, certainly among the shadow Transport spokesmen. At their first test, the London underground, their solution is wholesale privatisation. The hon. Member for Croydon, South should speak to his right hon. Friend on that point.


I want to take this opportunity to read into the record some serious points made by the Capital Transport Campaign, to which I hope the Minister will respond. Louise Hudson, a campaigner and researcher for that good organisation, referring to the Greater London Authority Bill and the London underground, said:
Capital Transport Campaign has become increasingly concerned during the past few months that the current proposals for the funding of London Underground will not meet the funding requirements of London's most heavily used public transport service. In addition, the proposals have not taken into account the findings of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's investigation into London Underground published in July 1998.
The Government grant to London Underground ceases in April 2000. The proposal is that the public-private partnership will provide over £7 billion over 15 years. That is less than the Underground is getting now. In addition there is the question of what will happen when the Government grant ceases. This will occur prior to the securing of extra revenue through the PPP.
The deal for the Underground will be struck between the Government and the private sector. This will happen prior to the establishment of the Greater London Authority. Fifty one per cent of respondents to a recent London First business survey said that the Underground was the most important transport issue for the GLA. With this in mind the Mayor is likely to be judged on whether he succeeds in delivering an improved Underground service. Capital Transport Campaign is concerned that under present plans the Mayor will be scapegoated. The Mayoral candidates will have no idea of the nature of the contracts being negotiated. However, the Greater London Authority will have to pay back the private contractors their £7 billion, plus interest. The only way to raise this money is:

1. Through raising fares
2. Through road pricing

Since most people who travel to work in central London travel by public transport, often those using the car do so out of necessity. They will ultimately pay for the public-private partnership along with the fare paying passenger who has already endured above inflation fare increases for a number of years.
With all this in mind we believe that if the PPP does go ahead then the Mayor and Transport for London should have access to Government funds. This will enable them to secure revenue for the Underground when the Government grant ceases or if the PPP is likely to make unnecessary demands on the Mayor's revenue stream. If extra revenue is not forthcoming then it is unlikely that enough money will be available for projects such as the step free access programme for the Underground. High road charges, above inflation fare increases and an inaccessible public transport system will ultimately lead to social exclusion.
I am sorry to have had to read that submission into the record, but those are important points that need to be addressed. I would be interested in the Minister's response. As the letter says, the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs said that the mayor could come under pressure to combine a cut in services with a hike in fares should there be a gap between income and fares, and payments to contractors. It called for fare increases to be capped and for the Government to clarify whether, in the event of a funding gap, they would make money available.
I welcome the Minister's statement that the Government would not let London underground fall into a black hole. I should like the Minister, if not today at some other point, to expand on that and give greater assurances.
Reference has been made to the article in The Guardian today which spoke of Railtrack possibly putting in a bid for London underground. The same article states:
Mr. Prescott had originally planned to let the private sector take over the Underground's track and signalling systems by next April, and no subsidy was set for 2000–2001.
The article also alleges that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
has been told by the Chancellor…that next year's £350 million maintenance costs for the Underground will have to come out of the department of transport's budget.
The financial situation is of concern to Londoners.
I asked the Minister of Transport about the cost of the Jubilee line extension. He replied that the new estimate for the final cost of the project was about £3.2 billion. Set against that is £2 billion ring-fenced by the Government and directly funded by Government grant. In addition, there are some private contributions, but they are quite small—£135 million already paid by the Canary wharf developers and £7.5 million from British Gas, and another £400 million is to be spread over 25 years. That is a small sum. The final cost of the Jubilee line will be about £3.2 billion and there will be a Government grant of £2 billion. If one adds another £0.2 billion from private amounts, there is still £1 billion to come from the DETR's budget.
The Minister of Transport told me that the Government were providing an extra £365 million for investment in the underground system, which means that a total of about £1 billion will be in the core network in 1998–99 and 1999–2000. That is for two years. As the Jubilee line extension is not being funded properly, the gap is £1 billion, and we are seeing the possibility of no Government grant subsidy from 2000 onwards. That is a serious problem for London Transport.
Therefore, I again point to the Minister's answer that the Government will not let London underground fall into a black hole. At the moment, the figures look like a black hole. I hope that, if not today, later, we shall have a better explanation from the Minister, and that Ministers, who are also London Members of Parliament, will bring greater pressure to bear on the Secretary of State and, in particular, the Treasury to ensure that London Transport and the London underground have a proper deal.
I am concerned about the points made by the Capital Transport Campaign that the new London mayor could be seriously scapegoated, or have his hands so tightly tied on London Transport that he could not develop the necessary policies in conjunction with and following the aims of the Government. I should appreciate it if those points could be addressed.

Mr. Tom Brake: This group of amendments goes to the heart of the matter: the future for transport in London. Liberal Democrat Members did not press amendment No. 35 to a vote so that we might able to debate this group at much greater length.
What is the current state of the tube? The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has already mentioned the figures—obtained by Liberal Democrats—on rolling stock failures, which both show that, in the two years since Labour came to power, there has been a 36 per cent. increase in such failures and demonstrate the signification deterioration in the situation. Other hon. Members have


already mentioned the fact that £350 million will be needed for routine maintenance on the underground, and that that money will have to be found in the budget of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
What about the current state of the public-private partnership? The Government's PPP proposals for the tube have been criticised by many well-respected individuals and organisations—to whom other hon. Members London have referred—such as London First; the London school of economics; John Kramer, the former chief executive of the Chicago rapid transport authority; the Capital Transport Campaign; and Chantrey Vellacott. All those people and organisations are either very worried about the Government's PPP proposals or are suggesting their preferred alternatives. Even a few Labour Members have expressed their concern about the proposals by supporting an early-day motion calling for an alternative to the PPP.
A report in the Financial Times stated that the Deputy Prime Minister is talking with the Treasury about alternatives to the PPP. We do not know what those alternatives are, but it would be interesting to find out. Moreover, the Minister for Transport in London has said that the Government
will not do a deal for a PPP at any cost".
However, the Chantrey Vellacott report that has been mentioned by hon. Members estimates that the Government's PPP proposals would impose an extra cost of no less than £7.8 billion to deliver the £7 billion of maintenance required on the London underground over and above the cost of the Government themselves financing the maintenance. The PPP process is therefore certainly not progressing with the support of many sections of the population or sectors of business.
Even more alarming are reports in today's press that Railtrack is perhaps the only contender for the PPP. We all know the Deputy Prime Minister's views on Railtrack. Recently, he said that Railtrack has been
engaging in the blame culture which has characterised the industry in recent years.
Until recently, that was his view on Railtrack. He has had his doubts about Railtrack, and I am sure that they remain.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Forgive me if I misheard what the hon. Gentleman said, but did he really say that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister blamed Railtrack for "the blame culture"?

Mr. Brake: I am quite happy to quote again the Deputy Prime Minister's comment. He said that Railtrack has been
engaging in the blame culture which has characterised the industry in recent years.
I am simply repeating his words.

Ms Jackson: I clearly did not mishear the hon. Gentleman. However, if he had read everything that my right hon. Friend has said in that context, he will appreciate that my right hon. Friend was not singling out Railtrack for engaging in the blame culture, but urging the entire railway industry to move away from that culture.

Mr. Brake: It may well be true that the Deputy Prime Minister was not singling out Railtrack specifically, but he was singling out the rail industry, of which Railtrack is a major player, generally.
What is the state of public-private partnership? We know that the tube system is deteriorating, and that concerns about the PPP are being expressed by various parties, companies and organisations. An alternative to PPP therefore must be found, which is why the Liberal Democrats have promoted the concept—which is supported by the Capital Transport Campaign—of a public interest company.
We believe that the concept of a public interest company is necessary as a fall-back position. It is not good enough for the official Opposition to propose ending the PPP entirely without proposing an alternative. Everyone knows that privatisation is not an alternative, as it would not receive the support of Londoners. It is therefore incumbent on parties to propose viable alternatives, such as a public interest company.
I hope that some Labour Members will agree that a public interest company is a viable alternative. Perhaps they will not actively and openly express their support for it today, but I hope that they are willing to work behind the scenes to promote it as an alternative to the Government's PPP proposals, which are rapidly running out of steam.
As the official Opposition have proposed no alternative to PPP, Liberal Democrat Members shall not be able to back them up on amendment No. 79. However, we call on the Minister to respond to the points that I have made on PPP, perhaps to give some ground on their PPP proposals, and to accept that, in the months and years to come, the mayor and assembly should be allowed to consider alternatives such as public interest companies.

Mr. John Randall: Although we have heard many different views on the issue, I think that both sides of the House will be able to agree that—although it has improved in parts—the London underground system is in a parlous state. I speak as someone who has used the underground for a great many years, and even used it to go to school.

Mr. Tony McNulty: That was a long time ago.

Mr. Randall: It was indeed a long time ago, demonstrating the extent of my experience in using the underground.
Today, as I came in from Uxbridge on the Metropolitan line, a delay was caused by a breakdown at Neasden, and the passengers in my carriage were not very happy about it. I also do not think that they would have been very impressed to hear the Minister say that time is not a factor in solving the underground's problems. People in my constituency who use the stations at Uxbridge, Ickenham and Hillingdon demand—and deserve—a better service.
Another major issue is how to reduce the number of cars driving into central London. That will not be easily achieved while the underground is in its current state.
We have heard various options for rectifying the problem. One option from what I hesitate to call old Labour is the injection of public money. The Government


would regard that as unacceptable. The Conservatives advocate privatisation and we have heard of the Liberal Democrats' idea of a public interest company. The public-private partnership that we have heard about seems to be the least acceptable option to the experts. I shall not repeat the full list of those who have been highly critical.
We should stop bandying investment figures about. It is time that the situation was resolved. The Government must realise that the public-private partnership is doomed from the start. We realised that in Committee when, in a sudden volte-face, the Government pulled out the clauses and said that they would come back to the issue, which is why we are debating it now.
Most Londoners thought that the Labour Government had a cunning plan. In the end, they have a PPP—a pretty pathetic plan.

Mr. Forth: I think that it was that great American President Ronald Reagan who said something like, "Here we go again." Here indeed we do go again. Yet again, we have before us another variant of the pathetic shambles that is the third way, in this case in the form of the mysterious PPP, which we are expected to believe will be the solution to what everybody knows are the problems of the London underground.
It has become ever clearer as we have debated the issue that the Government cannot decide whether they still believe in the virtues of public ownership—the Government or their agencies owning and running a facility—whether they have come the whole way in our direction and believe in the virtues of private ownership and management, or whether they would rather take refuge in something half way between, which is neither one nor the other and therefore has no credibility. I do not need to repeat the list that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has given of the reputable sources—well most of them are reputable, although one or two of them are not quite so reputable—who have analysed the issue and come up with cold, thoughtful criticism of the kind that we have all come to recognise.
We are in a dangerous situation, with the Government groping their way forward—as they do on so many other issues, such as reform of the House of Lords and constitutional change—with no clear end position. They want us to trust them to come up with something and to believe that everything will be all right. We have heard that approach on many issues, and here we are in the same position today.
That is bad enough, but now, thanks to the close questioning of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, the Minister has admitted that she has no answer to the basic problem of the nature of the relationship between a mayor and a Government who take differing views on the way forward for the London underground. That is a serious matter. We are asked to take the role of the mayor and the assembly seriously. That is what the Bill is all about and what the referendum was supposed to be about. Here we have the clearest possible example of the Government failing utterly to work their way through the possible relationship between the Government, the London boroughs, the assembly and the mayor on the future of the London underground, its investment and management and the ultimate responsibility for it.
As I have always suspected, we are in danger of having institutionalised conflict between the different centres of power and authority for which there is no resolution. What was the Minister's answer? She said—in all seriousness, I assume—that we should not worry because only a Labour candidate would be elected as mayor and he would accept the Government's policy completely. That is odd, because we do not know what the Government's policy is and nor, apparently, do they. However, the Minister says that she does not need to give an answer about the relationship between the mayor and the Government on the London underground because the mayor will be a Government puppet.
Labour Members may have their own views on that. Regrettably, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is not here at the moment. Perhaps he has a view on that. I do not know. As we still do not know how the Labour party is going to select its candidate for mayor, I do not know how the Minister can be as confident as she appears to be that the Labour mayor will simply be a puppet of the Government who will accept completely the shambolic approach that they are offering for the future of the London underground. All is yet to be revealed.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that we should trust the Government because it will be all right on the night and the mayor will probably not contest what the Government are doing. The Government do not really know what they are doing anyway, but, somehow, everything is supposed to work out. We are being asked to accept the Bill and the amendments in that context.
As if that were not bad enough, the Government new clauses contain all sorts of nonsense about a PPP arbiter. We do not know what the PPP is, how it will work and whether it will be biased towards the traditional public ownership approach that has failed this country so badly over many decades or the excitement and success of the new privatisation that we pioneered, and that the Government are playing with but have not quite come across to yet. The result is that a new bureaucrat will be set up to monitor, control or regulate the PPP, presumably because the Government do not know how it will work.
There are various provisions about how the arbiter will be appointed, the staff that he will have, the directions that he will take, guidance that will be given, the duties of the arbiter, the further powers of the arbiter, immunity and—that favourite of all bureaucrats—the expenses of the arbiter. We cannot leave expenses out, because the arbiter will obviously have to have loads of expenses. I do not want to detain the House by going into all those issues. Presumably, the Minister will tell us in detail why we need a PPP arbiter. I do not expect her to go into too much detail about the expenses, but that will all come out in due course.
All the provisions will add to the overhead burden of implementing whatever the Government want to do. All the measures that the Government have brought before us in these ill-thought-out, last minute changes to such an important Bill smack of a lack of thought and analysis and remind us that, every time that they do something, they add to the cost. Those who will bear the cost are the people who always bear the cost—the taxpayer and the users of the service. The combination may vary, but one thing is certain: the Government are telling the people of London, "Whatever we do to mangle your underground,


you, the London taxpayer and you, the users of the underground, will pay the bill, which will be substantial." That is not good enough.

6 pm

Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said that he used the tube to get to school. So did I—some years earlier than he did, I think. In the days when I first used the tube it cost half an old penny to go from Hampstead to Belsize Park.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Gosh, you are old.

Mr. Sayeed: I am old. That shows how many years I have been using the tube. Without the tube, London would grind to a halt. We forget that more people travel on the tube than on the whole of the UK railways.
In the past, we condemned the Soviet Union for a number of things, one of which was its suppression of demand by increasing queues, permitting shortages and making sure that life did not work productively. We are doing exactly the same with the tube service.
Breakdowns on the tube have increased by more than one third, much to the irritation of our constituents and ourselves. We know that the Government have cut the subsidy to the tube. In the last 10 years of the Conservative Government—between 1987 and 1997—the average subsidy was £700 million. Under the Labour Government, the subsidy has been £500 million, and the subsidy will end in May 2000. There is nothing in the Treasury figures to show what will happen after that.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the last two Budgets of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), there were significant cuts in the funding of London underground and that the figures that he has given do not give the whole picture?

Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but we must look at the entire 10-year period. We expected to denationalise London underground, and we were preparing it for that. As the Conservative Government had properly funded and expanded London underground enormously during their 18 years, there had been front-ended funding. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, I have no ideological hang-up about funding London underground. We should use the best system; whatever works.
When Price Waterhouse was asked about four options for future funding, the options were determined not by Price Waterhouse, but by the Government. In essence, the Government had determined the form of the funding for London underground. I find it extraordinary that the Government did not recognise that, if they decided to bring in a company of the repute of Price Waterhouse, they should have allowed it to decide on what it believed would work best. It would then have been for the Government to reject or accept it. However, the fact that the Government had determined the four options that Price Waterhouse was to look at meant that the company was constrained from looking at other options, including privatisation.
We are told often that the Government want an integrated transport policy. I regret to say that that is no more than a slogan. The Government, with the Bill—

in terms of the incoherent proposals for the underground, London's main artery—are making sure that we will not have fewer cars on London's roads, but more. They are suppressing demand on the underground, they are pricing it out of existence, they are making sure that the public subsidy is cut and they are making sure that travelling on the underground is an increasing misery.
As I said, without the tube, London would grind to a halt. Without the tube, people would not get to their jobs to earn money and to produce a prosperous Britain. It is incumbent on any Government to produce a public transport system for the capital city that will work. This Government are clearly failing to do that, and the Bill—which demonstrates that they are confused as to what they should do in the future—deserves to fail.

Mr. Edward Davey: It is astonishing that we are having to consider 10 new clauses tonight. They are substantial new clauses, which change the dynamics of the commercial agreement to which the House is being asked to give its consent.
New clauses 37 to 46 are needed logically by the PPP in terms of the structure that the Government are proposing. With a 30-year lease to private sector companies, there is a need for review. In Committee—when the Minister surprised us with the announcement—it was stated that a review was needed because the technology might change, and that the agreement would have to be reviewed to take account of that.
There may be a need to review the performance of the contract, and how well the private sector company is doing with respect to the initial understanding. There is a need for a review to serve the interests of democracy. If we are to have elections for a mayor to oversee Transport for London, clearly the parameters of the agreement could be changed.

Mr. Brake: Am I right in thinking that when the Liberal Democrats proposed a review in earlier debates, the Minister pooh-poohed it?

Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is right, but the Government have thought again. Within their own framework, there is a need for review, which shows the costs of their proposals. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to the higher costs, and the Liberal Democrats contend that the Government's PPP proposal will be an incredibly expensive way of maintaining, developing and investing in the London underground.
In such contractual relationships, one must think of the risk involved. The private sector contractor must be compensated for those risks. There are risks inherent in such contracts, including construction risks; we have seen those on the Jubilee line extension, with the overruns and the difficulties in tunnelling. Such matters are difficult to know a priori, so compensation is needed.
There are funding risks, and we have heard about the higher costs for the private sector in terms of getting the capital—something to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred. We have heard references to the Chantrey Vellacott estimates of the costs.


The new clauses, with the introduction of the arbiter, add another, expensive risk. Anyone signing such an agreement will know that the contracts may change in future, not just by agreement, but by fiat. New clause 40(6) states:
A direction under subsection (3) above shall be final and binding…and shall, if and to the extent that the notice given under subsection (5) above so provides, take effect as a term of the PPP agreement.
There is no doubt that anyone signing up to such contracts could be forced by the PPP arbiter to have their commercial agreement rewritten—without their agreement, necessarily. Which company would enter such a commercial agreement unless it knew that it would be massively compensated up front? That is where the higher costs will come in as a result of the Government's proposals. The travelling public of London and the taxpayer will be asked to pay those higher costs.
In the Financial Times, the Minister said that one of the reasons for the arbiter was to make sure that companies did not make "windfall profits". When the potential bidders heard that, they were amazed. They find the idea that they will make huge profits ludicrous, considering all the risks involved. One of them was quoted as saying:
We don't see enormous profits, but the risks are considerable.
The risks are indeed massive, and people will be persuaded to take them on only by up-front payment.
The complexity of the PPP agreements lies not only in the need to analyse the risks before drawing up the legal documents. Imagine the extra transaction costs involved in setting up the whole system. There will be huge bills from the lawyers, bankers and other consultants. In opposition, Labour Members criticised the Conservative Government for paying so much in consultancy fees when they privatised the railways. The new proposals do not avoid that, despite what the Government hoped. Arguably, the transaction costs will be much higher. They will not be one-off, either, because of all the reviews. The costs inherent in the system, by basic common-sense analysis, are incredibly high.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made it clear that there are alternatives. We set them out in detail in Committee. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) spoke about the academic studies. If the Government had bothered to cross the pond to the United States of America, of which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is so enamoured, they would have seen, in the hotbed of capitalism, examples of public sector owners operating public transport systems in urban areas incredibly successfully.
John Kramer took over Chicago's urban railway company—it is overground as well as underground—when it was in a total mess and had been deteriorating because the previous public sector operation had not invested in it, but he was able to make it a success by issuing bonds, backed up by ticket revenue and state taxes, so that the people who provided the private finances knew that the returns would be stable. Over 20 years, he issued more than $20 billion-worth of bonds. That money enabled his management team to plan investment with certainty and transform Chicago's transportation system into the envy of the country.
That was a public sector option, using private sector capital, which is what the Liberal Democrats are arguing for. It has worked in America, and the Government could easily take it up. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) made that point in a brave and excellent speech, and some Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), signed the Liberal Democrats' early-day motion calling for a public interest company.
Many hon. Members support our approach. One would have thought that it was right up the Government's street and that the Deputy Prime Minister would have loved to adopt it. There is a huge battle raging in the Labour party between the privatisers in the Treasury and the people who take a different approach in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; unfortunately, the Deputy Prime Minister and his friends are not winning.
The Minister pooh-poohs all press reports, but I am pleased to say that we have heard that the Deputy Prime Minister has had an emergency meeting with the Chief Secretary and other Treasury Ministers to find out whether there is an escape route and they can get out of this mess. We have offered them an escape route in new clauses 5 and 9. I think that the way out that we have offered in case the Government cannot make a go of their scheme would attract a lot of support.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We are offering the Government a way, which I hope they will accept, even at this late stage, of getting off the hook. The great benefit of the public interest company, as in the Chicago scheme, is that it combines democratic accountability—it is run by those who are elected—with having more stakeholders. More people in the community publicly and openly participate, in that their finances feed the system and make it run, but it is controlled by those who are elected to that function.

Mr. Davey: That is absolutely right. Ours is a democratic and transparent option, as well as being the most efficient. It is the best value for money for both passengers and taxpayers. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington has today written to the Public Accounts Committee asking it to investigate the accounting of the PPP.
The Government will get their way and railroad through their 10 new clauses and the PPP scheme, even though the provisions are ill thought through and we will probably need to make many changes by regulation or by other means. The Public Accounts Committee needs to investigate, because in years to come the scheme will be seen to be an atrocious use of taxpayers' money.
The PPP proposal is the Government's worst mistake since they came to power. It is a total shambles and will be proved to be so in years to come.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I wondered whether the Conservative and Liberal spokesmen had rehearsed their contributions. They have been joined at the hip. I will ensure that the people of London know precisely what approach both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats take to the overwhelmingly important issue for London of how we attract sustainable funding to improve our underground.


We have heard not one word from the official Opposition or the Liberal Democrats on how they would do that. We have heard endless fantasy, misrepresentation and scaremongering. Both parties have clearly failed to familiarise themselves with our proposals on the public-private partnership. The absurdities that have emanated from the lips of Opposition Members have been scandalous.
When in power, the Conservatives proposed privatisation for the underground. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was much concerned about what he considered a wilful waste of time by the Government over the public-private partnership. Is he aware that the Conservative Government's privatisation proposals would, by the estimate of the then Secretary of State for Transport, have taken at least four years to be fully implemented, even though they planned to reduce the underground by a third? The then Secretary of State informed the then Chancellor that, even post privatisation, they were looking for at least £190 million a year to be invested in the underground.

Mr. Ottaway: How do you know that?

Ms Jackson: We know that because the notes between the two of them were deliberately leaked. That was one of the reasons why the people of London expressed their total opposition to the Conservative party's proposal to privatise and why they have endorsed the Government's proposal for a public-private partnership.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) repeated the Liberal Democrats' favourite call about bonds issues, which he says work extremely well in America. He forgets that those major American cities that were brought to bankruptcy and beyond not only by issuing bonds for financing capital investments, but by breaking out of any overarching control over public borrowing for major investment.
We have made it abundantly clear that we believe in true fiscal prudence—and certainly in this area.

Mr. Brake: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jackson: No. I shall finish my point, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.
It is absurd to presuppose that a public-private partnership evinced by this Government will do anything other than produce the best possible value for the taxpayer and the people of London by ensuring adequate investment. There will be no massive hike in fares, as the scaremongers on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches have said in an attempt to delude the House and the people of London. There will be the certainty of long-term, sustained investment, which will improve the underground and its services.

Mr. Brake: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jackson: No.
The representation of the London underground given by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was less than fair. He neglected to mention the programme of investment in which this Government have already engaged. We managed to find an additional £365 million for London underground when we came to office,

which is improving escalators, tracks and signalling. The sum has enabled the underground to prioritise issues of access at core stations. Over time, such stations will become truly accessible to everybody in London.
If anyone genuinely believes that the deterioration that the hon. Member for Uxbridge described has come about over the past two years, they are clearly as misguided as Opposition Members. Such deterioration does not occur in the space of two years. It is the accumulation of more than a decade of neglect by the previous Administration. I sincerely hope that if Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members are not persuaded to withdraw the amendments, the House will reject them out of hand.
I think that it would now be appropriate to speak to Government new clauses 37 to 46. I was surprised by the astonishment expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on these new clauses because I announced in Committee that the Government would be tabling amendments on Report to facilitate the establishment of an arbiter. I explained to the Committee that the mayor and PPP contractors would need to review future underground investment from time to time. The PPP contracts will therefore set out the procedures for periodic reviews, which will be held every seven and a half years or so.
The scaremongering of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who says that such reviews would lead to excessive and overweening costs, is unfounded. It is abundantly clear that the need for an arbiter will arise only if there is any basic disagreement between the mayor and the contractor. We expect the reviews to be conducted in a spirit of partnership, but it is inevitable that two parties may not always be able to agree. Therefore, it is necessary to provide for an arbiter. The parties to the contract will be able to refer unresolved matters to the arbiter, who will give a direction that is binding on both of them—unless both agree not to give effect to it.
I sent Members who served on the Committee an explanatory note which gives a brief summary of the new clauses. Copies have also been placed in the Library. It may, however, help the House if I describe the general purpose and effect of the new clauses.
New clause 37 provides for the appointment of the arbiter by the Secretary of State. The Government's intention is that there should be one arbiter for all three PPP contracts. Subsection (6) is therefore particularly important, in that it requires the Secretary of State to consult such persons as he considers appropriate before making an appointment.
New clause 38 makes provision concerning the terms of appointment and dismissal of the arbiter. New clause 39 deals with the appointment of staff and their ability to discharge functions on behalf of the arbiter. New clause 40 sets out the arbiter's powers to give directions on matters referred to him by the parties to a PPP agreement. As I have mentioned, such directions are to be binding on the parties unless they both agree not to give effect to them.
New clause 41 gives the arbiter a power to give non-binding guidance to the parties where they jointly refer a matter to him. The purpose of the new clause is to encourage the parties to reach agreement between themselves, in the light of the arbiter's guidance, without relying on a binding direction.


New clause 42 sets out the arbiter's duties when making directions or giving guidance. New clause 43 sets out further powers of the arbiter, including one to inspect relevant assets. New clause 44 empowers the arbiter to collect information that he considers relevant to the discharge of his functions. New clause 45 removes the liability of the arbiter and his staff for any acts or omissions, unless they can be shown to have been committed in bad faith. New clause 46 provides for the funding of the arbiter by the Secretary of State and for the recovery of costs from the parties concerned.
These are important new clauses. They are intended to ensure that future investment needs of the London underground can be reviewed in the knowledge that the parties may call on an independent third party to issue binding directions when there are unresolved differences. The new clauses give the arbiter the necessary powers and duties to carry out such a task in a way that should be reassuring both to the mayor and Transport for London, and to PPP contractors.
The new clauses are yet another example of the care and attention to detail that the Government have brought to bear not only on the PPP, but on the Bill. So far from the shallow and fantastic criticism that hon. Members have levelled at the Government to the effect that the PPP project is some shambles, the Government will ensure, via the PPP, adequate, sustainable, long-term funding so that when the underground is transferred to the mayor, it will be able to deliver the modern underground services that the people of London so desperately need.
We have been meticulous in assuring ourselves that the model on which we base the definition of PPP contracts will deliver the best possible value to the taxpayer and, of course, to the underground itself. We have made it abundantly clear that, unlike the previous Administration, we will not be driven by empty ideology, or labour under the burden of an artificially imposed time scale. We will not be tinkering with Liberal Democrat proposals on financing the underground. I have serious difficulty in believing that the Liberal Democrat proposals could adequately fund a toy train over a long time, let alone cope with the complexities of the London underground.
It is this Government, with their imaginative and innovative approach not only to local government but to genuine partnership, who will deliver for London the democratic voice that it has so long desired and the means of ensuring that the underground will be properly and adequately funded in the long term. I commend the new clauses to the House.

Mrs. Laing: It is unfortunate that the Minister still blindly refuses to recognise the great success of privatisation of the railways, which has put Railtrack in a position today to declare that it wants to take over the underground. Would not that be a great way of using the resources that Railtrack has built up for the benefit of users of London underground and all the people of London? Dogma prevents the Minister and her colleagues from envisaging how well such a system would work.
Will the Minister confirm that, whatever conditions are imposed on whichever company or organisation runs the underground, all services that are currently provided, especially those beyond the Greater London boundary—in other words, in my constituency at the end of the Central line—will continue to run?

Ms Jackson: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. If I remember correctly, she asked the same question on Second Reading. My answer now is the same as the one that I gave then.

It being half-past Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [30 April]:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 283.

Division No. 165]
[6.30 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hammond, Philip


Amess, David
Hawkins, Nick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heald, Oliver


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Baldry, Tony
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Beggs, Roy
Horam, John


Bercow, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hunter, Andrew


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brady, Graham
Jenkin, Bernard


Brazier, Julian
Johnson Smith,


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Browning, Mrs Angela
Key, Robert


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Burns, Simon
Lansley, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Leigh, Edward


Cash, William
Lidington, David


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Loughton, Tim


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


(Rushcliffe)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Malins, Humfrey


Collins, Tim
Maples, John


Cran, James
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Curry, Rt Hon David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
May, Mrs Theresa


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice
Nicholls, Patrick


& Howden)
Ottaway, Richard


Day, Stephen
Page, Richard


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Paterson, Owen


Duncan, Alan
Randall, John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Evans, Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fabricant, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fallon, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Flight, Howard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fraser, Christopher
Soames, Nicholas


Garnier, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gibb, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Gill, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Syms, Robert


Gray, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Green, Damian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Greenway, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Viggers, Peter






Walter, Robert
Wilshire, David


Waterson, Nigel
Woodward, Shaun


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Yeo, Tim


Whittingdale, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilkinson, John
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Willetts, David
Sir David Madel.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coffey, Ms Ann


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cohen, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Colman, Tony


Allen, Graham
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cooper, Yvette


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Corston, Ms Jean


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cousins, Jim


Atkins, Charlotte
Crausby, David


Austin, John
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Banks, Tony
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Battle, John
Dalyell, Tam


Bayley, Hugh
Darvill, Keith


Beard, Nigel
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davidson, Ian


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dawson, Hilton


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bennett, Andrew F
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Berry, Roger
Dobbin, Jim


Best, Harold
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Betts, Clive
Donohoe, Brian H


Blackman, Liz
Dowd, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drew, David


Blizzard, Bob
Drown, Ms Julia


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boateng, Paul
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Borrow, David
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradley, keith (Withington)
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Etherington, Bill


Brake, Tom
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brand, Dr Peter
Fisher, Mark


Breed, Colin
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flint, Caroline


Buck, Ms Karen
Flynn, Paul


Burden, Richard
Follett, Barbara


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burnett, John
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burstow, Paul
Foulkes, George


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gapes, Mike


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gardiner, Barry


Cable, Dr Vincent
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Cambell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cann, Jamie
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caplin, Ivor
Godsiff, Roger


Casale, Roger
Goggins, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Church, Ms Judith
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Grocott, Bruce


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clelland, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clwyd, Ann
Healey, John


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)





Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mullin, Chris


Hepburn, Stephen
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hill, Keith
Olner, Bill


Hinchliffe, David
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hoey, Kate
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Perham, Ms Linda


Hope, Phil
Pickthall, Colin


Howarth, George(Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Lindsay
Plaskitt, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Pollard, Kerry


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pope, Greg


Hurst, Alan
Pound, Stephen


Hutton, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Iddon, Dr Brain
Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Prosser, Gwyn


Jackson, Ms Glenda(Hampstead)
Purchase, Ken


Jenkins, Brain
Radice, Giles


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Rammell, Bill


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Rapson, Syd


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Jones, Helen(Warrington N)
(Hamilton S)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Roche, Mrs Barbara


(Wolverh'ton Sw)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Roy, Frank


Keeble ,Ms Sally
Ruddock, Joan


Keen, Ann(Brentford & Isleworth)
Russell, Bob(Colchester)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kemp, Fraser
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Sanders, Adrian


Khabra, Piara S
Savidge, Malcolm


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Sawford, Phil


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sedgemore, Brain


Kingham, Ms Tess
Sheerman, Barry


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Laxton, Bob
Singh, Marsha


Levitt, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Lewis, Terry(Worsley)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Linton, Martin
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Livingstone, Ken
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Soley, Clive


Llwyd, Elfyn
Southworth, Ms Helen


Lock, David
Spellar, John


Love, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


McAvoy, Thomas
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


(Makerfield)
Stoate, Dr Howard


McDonagh, Siobhain
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


McDonnell, John
Stringer, Graham


Mckenna, Mrs Rosemary
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Mackinaly, Andrew
(Dewsbury)


McNulty, Tony
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


MacShane, Denis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mactaggart, Fiona
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


McWalter, Tony
Timms, Stephen


McWilliam, John
Tipping, paddy


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Todd, Mark


Mallaber, Judy
Trickett, Jon


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Truswell, Paul


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Meale, Alan
Walley, Ms Joan


Merron, Gillian
Ward, Ms Claire


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Wareing, Robert N


Mitchell, Austin
Watts, David


Moffatt, Laura
White, Brain


Moran Ms Margaret
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Morley, Elliot
Wicks, Malcolm


Mountford, Kali
Wills, Michael






Winnick, David
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wise, Audrey



Wood, Mike
Tellers for the Noes: 


Wray, James
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 37

THE PPP ARBITER

`.—(1) The Secretary of State may appoint a person to an office to be known as "the Public-Private Partnership Agreement Arbiter" (in this Act referred to as the "PPP arbiter").
(2) The PPP arbiter shall have the functions conferred or imposed on him by or under this Act.
(3) The PPP arbiter shall he a corporation sole by the name of "the Public-Private Partnership Agreement Arbiter".
(4) If at any time no person holds the office of PPP arbiter, the Secretary of State shall appoint a person to that office if requested in writing to do so by a party to a PPP agreement.
(5) A request under subsection (4) above must not include a request for a particular person to be appointed.
(6) Before making an appointment under subsection (1) or (4) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate concerning—

(a) the person to be appointed; and
(b) the terms of the appointment. 

(7) The office of PPP arbiter may not be held by—

(a) the Mayor;
(b) an Assembly member;
(c) the Authority or a member of staff of the Authority;
(d) Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London; or
(e) a member of Transport for London or a director of a subsidiary of Transport for London.

(8) The offices of Rail Regulator and PPP arbiter may be held by the same person.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 38

TERMS OF APPOINTMENT ETC OF THE PPP ARBITER

`.—(1) A person appointed to be the PPP arbiter shall be appointed for such term as may be specified or described in the instrument appointing him and shall hold and vacate office as the PPP arbiter in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(2) There shall be paid to the PPP arbiter such remuneration, and such travelling and other allowances, as the Secretary of State may determine.
(3) There shall be paid such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of the PPP arbiter, or such contributions or payments towards provision for such a pension, allowance or gratuity, as the Secretary of State may determine.
(4) A person may resign from office as the PPP arbiter at any time by giving notice to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State may remove a person from office as the PPP arbiter—

(a) on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour; or
(b) where the Secretary of State considers that there has been unreasonable delay in the discharge of the functions of the PPP arbiter.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 39

STAFF OF THE PPP ARBITER

`.—(1) The PPP arbiter may appoint such staff as he may determine, subject to any restrictions contained in the terms of his appointment.
(2) The staff of the PPP arbiter shall be appointed on such terms and conditions as he shall determine, subject to any restrictions contained in the terms of his appointment.
(3) Any function of the PPP arbiter may be exercised by any member of his staff authorised for the purpose by him or, if there is no person who holds the office of PPP arbiter, by the relevant authority, whether specially or generally.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 40

DIRECTIONS OF THE PPP ARBITER

`.—(1) A PPP agreement may provide for matters of any description specified in the agreement to be referred to the PPP arbiter.
(2) A party to a PPP agreement may refer to the PPP arbiter for direction any matter of a description specified in a provision of that agreement by virtue of subsection (I) above.
(3) Where a matter is referred under this section to the PPP arbiter for direction he—

(a) shall give a direction in relation to that matter, and
(b) may give a direction in relation to any other matter which he considers relevant to the matter referred.

(4) The directions that may be given under subsection (3) above include directions relating to the inclusion of new terms in, or the variation of existing terms of, the PPP agreement in question.
(5) The PPP arbiter shall give notice of any direction under subsection (3) above to the parties to the PPP agreement in question.
(6) A direction under subsection (3) above shall be final and binding—

(a) on the parties to the PPP agreement in question, and
(b) on any persons claiming through or under those parties,
and shall, if and to the extent that the notice given under subsection (5) above so provides, take effect as a term of the PPP agreement.

(7) Where a direction has been given under subsection (3) above, the parties to the PPP agreement in question may jointly agree that subsection (6) above is not to have effect in relation to that direction.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 41

GUIDANCE BY THE PPP ARBITER

`.—(1) The parties to a PPP agreement may jointly agree to refer any matter relating to the agreement to the PPP arbiter for consideration.
(2) Where a matter is referred by virtue of subsection (1) above to the PPP arbiter for consideration he shall consider the matter and shall give to the parties who referred the matter such guidance as he considers appropriate.


(3) The guidance which may be given by the PPP arbiter by virtue of subsection (2) above includes guidance about any matter which he considers relevant to the PPP agreement in question.
(4) Where the PPP arbiter has given any guidance under this section in relation to a matter which is subsequently referred to him for direction under subsection (3) of section (Directions of the PPP arbiter) above, the direction which may be given by the PPP arbiter under that subsection is not restricted by that guidance.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 42

DUTY OF PPP ARBITER

`.—(1) In giving in relation to a PPP agreement—

(a) any direction under section (Directions of the PPP arbiter)(3) above, or
(b) any guidance under section (Guidance by the PPP arbiter)(2) above,

the PPP arbiter shall act in the way he considers best calculated to achieve the objectives specified in subsections (2) to (5) below.
(2) The objective specified in this subsection is to ensure the performance of the PPP agreement in question so as to secure that the railway infrastructure to which the agreement relates—

(a) is provided, constructed, renewed or improved, as the case may be, and
(b) is maintained,

having regard to the resources available to any relevant body which is a party to the agreement.
(3) The objective specified in this subsection is to promote efficiency and economy—

(a) in the provision, construction, renewal, or improvement, as the case may be, and
(b) in the maintenance,

of the railway infrastructure to which the PPP agreement in question relates.
(4) The objective specified in this subsection is to enable any PPP company which is a party to the PPP agreement in question, and which the PPP arbiter considers to be efficient and economic in performing the agreement, to earn the rate of return incorporated in the agreement.
(5) The objective specified in this subsection is to enable any PPP company which is a party to the PPP agreement in question to plan the future performance of the agreement with reasonable certainty.
(6) In giving any such direction or guidance as is mentioned in subsection (1) above the PPP arbiter is to take account of any factors which—

(a) are notified to him by the parties to the PPP agreement in question, acting jointly, as factors to which he must have regard when giving the direction or guidance in question, or
(b) are factors specified or described in the PPP agreement in question as factors to which the PPP arbiter must have regard in giving any direction under section (Directions of the PPP arbiter)(3) above or any guidance under section (Guidance by the PPP arbiter)(2) above.

(7) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, a rate of return is "incorporated in a PPP agreement" if, and only if, the agreement—

(a) makes provision for the rate of return to be earned under the agreement by the PPP company concerned, and
(b) states that subsection (4) above is to have effect in relation to that provision.


(8) In this section "railway infrastructure" means the railway or proposed railway in question and includes a reference to any stations, rolling stock or depots used or to be used in connection with that railway.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 43

FURTHER POWERS OF THE PPP ARBITER

`.—(1) For the purposes of the proper discharge of the functions conferred or imposed on him by or under this Act, the PPP arbiter may—

(a) carry out inspections of such of the railway infrastructure or equipment belonging to, or under the control of, any party to a PPP agreement as he considers appropriate;
(b) consult such bodies or persons as he considers appropriate in relation to any direction or guidance given or proposed to be given by him;
(c) do all such things as he considers appropriate for or in connection with the giving of a direction under section (Directions of the PPP arbiter)(3) above or guidance under section (Guidance by the PPP arbiter)(2) above; and
(d) do such other things as he considers necessary or expedient.

(2) The powers conferred on the PPP arbiter by this section and section (Provision of information to the PPP arbiter) below are exercisable for purposes preparatory or ancillary to the giving of directions or guidance under this Chapter generally and notwithstanding that there is no matter in relation to which a direction under section (Directions of the PPP arbiter)(3) above, or guidance under section (Guidance by the PPP arbiter)(2) above, is required.
(3) In this section "railway infrastructure" has the same meaning as in section (Duty of PPP arbiter) above.'—[Mr. Dowd.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 44

PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO THE PPP ARBITER

`.—(1) Any person falling within subsection (2) below shall, at the request of the PPP arbiter, provide him with such information as the PPP arbiter considers relevant to the proper discharge of the functions conferred or imposed on him by or under this Act and as may be specified or described in the request.
(2) The persons who fall within this subsection are—

(a) any party to a PPP agreement;
(b) any associate of a party to a PPP agreement; and
(c) any party to a related third party agreement within the meaning of section jOnc44 above.

(3) The information shall be provided in such form and manner, and within such time, as may be specified in the request.
(4) A person is not obliged by virtue of this section to provide any information which he would be entitled to refuse to provide in or for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, "associate", in relation to a party to a PPP agreement, means—

(a) a parent undertaking of that party;
(b) a subsidiary undertaking of any parent undertaking of that party;
(c) a subsidiary undertaking of that party; or
(d) an undertaking in which that party, or any undertaking falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) above, has a participating interest.



(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above—
parent undertaking" and "subsidiary undertaking" shall be construed in accordance with section 258 of the Companies Act 1985;
undertaking" has the meaning given by section 259 of that Act; and
participating interest" has the meaning given by section 260 of that Act.'—[Mr. Dowd.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 45

IMMUNITY OF PPP ARBITER

`.—(1) The PPP arbiter is not liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as the PPP arbiter unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith.
(2) Subsection (1) above applies to a member of the staff of, or an agent of, the PPP arbiter as it applies to the PPP arbiter.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 46

EXPENSES OF THE PPP ARBITER

—The following expenses, namely—

(a) any sums payable by virtue of section (Terms of appointment etc of the PPP arbiter)(2) or (3) above, and
(b) any expenses duly incurred by the PPP arbiter or by any staff of the PPP arbiter,

shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State.
(2) A relevant body which is a party to a PPP agreement shall pay to the Secretary of State, at such times as he may direct, such sums as the Secretary of State may determine in respect of expenses defrayed by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above.
(3) A PPP agreement may provide that sums paid by a relevant body by virtue of subsection (2) above, or any portion of such sums as may be specified or described in the PPP agreement, may be recovered by the relevant body from a PPP company which is a party to the PPP agreement.
(4) Where a PPP agreement includes provision by virtue of subsection (3) above making any sum recoverable by a relevant body, the directions which may be given under section (Directions of the PPP arbiter)(3) above include directions varying the amount so recoverable.
(5) Sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of this section shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'—[Mr. Dowd.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 187

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS ON JOURNEYS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON

Amendment made: No. 88, in page 100, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—
`(b) which by virtue of section (Continuity: repealed or revoked functions of LRT) above has effect as if made by Transport for London.'—[Mr. Dowd.]

Schedule 9

OPERATING POWERS OF TRANSPORT FOR LONDON

Amendments made: No. 89, in page 192, line 32, leave out
`before it ceases to exist,'.
No. 90, in page 197, line 37, leave out
`before it ceases to exist,'.
No. 91, in page 198, line 23, leave out from 'contract' to 'notwithstanding' in line 24 and insert
`which by virtue of section (Continuity: repealed or revoked functions of LRT) of this Act has effect as if made by Transport for London,'—[Mr. Dowd.]

Schedule 13

PENALTY FARES

Amendment made: No. 92, in page 214, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
'(b) which by virtue of section (Continuity: repealed or revoked functions of LRT) of this Act has effect as if made by Transport for London.'— [Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 222

ROAD USER CHARGING

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 121, line 36, leave out clause 222.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 25, in page 121, line 36, after '(1)%% insert
'Where the revenue raised is to be invested solely and exclusively in better provision for public transport, cycling and walking in Greater London'.
Amendment No. 81, in page 121, line 41, leave out `keeping or'.
Amendment No. 83, in schedule 18, page 230, line 36, leave out Schedule 18.
Amendment No. 82, in page 230, line 45, leave out `keeping or'.
Government amendments Nos. 140 and 141.
Amendment No. 8, in page 235, line 12, leave out from `scheme' to third 'the' in line 13.
Amendment No. 9, in page 235, line 14, leave out
'during the scheme's initial period'.
Amendment No. 10, in page 235, line 19, leave out from `(2)' to 'the'.
Amendment No. 11, in page 235, leave out lines 24 to 27.
Amendment No. 12, in page 235, leave out lines 32 to 40.
Amendment No. 13, in page 236, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 237.
Amendment No. 14, in page 237, leave out lines 24 to 38. Government amendment No. 142.
Amendment No. 26, in clause 223, page 122, line 3, after `(1)', insert
`Where the revenue raised is to be invested solely and exclusively in better provision for public transport, cycling and walking in Greater London'.
Government amendment No. 143.
Amendment No. 15, in schedule 19, page 247, line 6, leave out from 'scheme' to third 'the' in line 7.
Amendment No. 16, in page 247, line 8, leave out
`during the scheme's initial period'.
Amendment No. 17, in page 247, line 13, leave out from '(2)' to 'the'.
Amendment No. 18, in page 247, leave out lines 18 to 21.
Amendment No. 19, in page 247, leave out lines 26 to 34.
Amendment No. 20, in page 248, leave out lines 28 to 44.
Amendment No. 21, in page 249, leave out lines 16 to 30.
Government amendment No. 144.
New clause 6—Traffic disruption charge—
`(1) Where the money is to be invested solely and exclusively in better provision for public transport, cycling and walking in Greater London, each of the following bodies, namely,

(a) the Authority,
(b) any London borough council, or
(c) the Common Council,

may establish and operate schemes for imposing charges in respect of any disruption caused by works to roads, pavements or cycle lanes in their area.'.
Government amendment No. 145.

Mr. Ottaway: This debate is on road pricing. It would be sensible to get some myths out of the way before the debate begins. We concede that a transport Green Paper in the early 1990s, towards the end of the previous Government's time in office, said that there was a presumption that road pricing would be introduced. A Green Paper is a consultation document, not a statement of policy. That would not therefore have been a national policy as defined in the Bill.
Secondly, a presumption in a Green Paper can be rebutted, and the Government should be under no illusion but that that idea was rebutted. The proposal was not taken forward. The proposal to introduce road pricing did not appear in the Conservative party manifesto in 1997. It never formed a part of our policy.
We share the concern of all political parties about the problem of congestion. There is widespread concern about pollution caused by cars and other motor vehicles. The challenge to Governments of either persuasion is how to manage the car. In our view, clobbering the motorist is not the solution, and we reject outright the Government's anti-car rhetoric. Furthermore, making London the pilot scheme for congestion tax stands logic on its head. I can think of nowhere less suited and nowhere that would pose greater technical problems.
Amendment No. 81 may be described as the lesser of our two amendments. It would delete the power from clause 222 to impose a charge for keeping a vehicle on the road. That charge is not a road user charge or a congestion tax. It is just another stealth tax. The clause permits the mayor and the London boroughs to impose a further levy for parking or keeping a car within a certain area. It is a further back-door tax that has nothing to do with congestion, and we oppose it.
The main issue is the congestion tax, however. Already, 83 per cent. of commuters travel in and out of London by public transport. Public transport in central London is good, although that is, of course, a relative term. It is certainly better than in other cities in Britain and in most cities in the rest of the world. Whether under Labour or the Conservatives, public transport in London has been good. A wide variety of choice is available. By and large, and subject to the usual technical problems, the system gets people around the capital.
As a result, road traffic in central London is not growing. The Automobile Association notes:
Road traffic levels within central London have hardly changed in 20 years. However, traffic levels in the outer areas have increased by 50 per cent in just 15 years.
The question is whether central London is the right place to impose a congestion tax. People like their cars, the most liberating influence of the post-war years. Cars allow people a freedom to travel that their parents and grandparents never knew. People feel safe in their cars. Mothers use them to take children to school. Nurses use them for their night duty. Pensioners or disabled people use their cars to get to the shops. These are the people who will be hardest hit by the congestion tax.
Let me turn to traffic speed. The AA, once again, states:
Travel by vehicle through central London has always been slow going because of the high frequency of junctions. In outer areas, speeds tend to be higher. Overall traffic speeds are declining in London. though less so in the central area because traffic levels have reduced slightly.
Traffic speeds have slowed more generally in London and that is in large part attributable to the Government's anti-car stance. We are all in favour of pedestrian safety and of ensuring that drivers proceed safely, but do we really need each and every one of the extra crossings, traffic-calming measures and lane reductions that are currently being introduced? The widespread view is that the use of such measures has gone too far, and I have no doubt that it is a contributory factor to the reduction in traffic speeds in the capital.
I said on Second Reading and in Standing Committee that we have to hand it to the Government: they slow down the traffic and thereby create congestion, which they then tax—that is a smart move. The truth is that many of the traffic jams are man-made; they could be avoided and traffic could be speeded up through more pro-motorist thinking.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I recall the hon. Gentleman saying in Committee how strongly he supported local government in London being able to make its own decisions, so I find it difficult to understand why he criticises the Government on this point, given that most of the decisions on traffic calming are local borough decisions and will remain so. Why is the Tory party coming out, not against a proposition that there will be road charging, but against a proposition that, the issue having been debated during the election, those elected to represent Londoners may choose to impose road charging?
Surely Tory policy, if it means anything, is to give freedom to local government and other authorities to make decisions; but the hon. Gentleman wants to restrict London's choices by removing altogether one of the options available to it.

Mr. Ottaway: It is perfectly straightforward: we are against the congestion tax in London. As for the
introduction of traffic-calming measures being a local authority decision, the hon. Gentleman should recall that, about a year ago, the Government proudly published a press release in which they announced that they had authorised huge levels of spending for thousands of new traffic-calming measures in London. That was Government money being spent on schemes instigated by the Government, and the local authorities were nothing but the agents of implementation; the Government inspired the initiative and the drive behind the schemes came from the centre.

Mr. Hughes: A large proportion of the money will have been taxpayers' money because a large proportion of transport spending in Britain comes from the taxpayer by way of grant to local government. In some ways, for some purposes, local authorities are agents, but to my knowledge no local council has been required to spend money against its wishes on traffic-calming schemes. If the hon. Gentleman can give me one example to the contrary, his case has credibility—but I suspect that there is no such example.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman has caught me unawares and I do not have such an example to hand, but he should not doubt that, if a local authority is given money, it will spend it. The truth is that if the Government take the credit for the schemes, they must be prepared to take the criticism as well. Let us suppose that I am wrong and the hon. Gentleman is right and that all the measures are entirely local-authority inspired; in that case, the local authorities are creating the congestion. However, the point is that the slowing down of traffic and the increase in congestion is, to a large extent, man-made.
Two of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues—the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—are constituency neighbours of mine, and they might occasionally visit Coulsdon in my constituency; in fact, I know that one of them has, because he wrote to me to tell me so. The red route director has put no fewer than three pedestrian crossings across the A23 route into Coulsdon, which has caused tailbacks north and south of about a mile each way. Those tailbacks never occurred before the crossings were introduced, so the congestion is a man-made problem. The existing pedestrian crossings worked fine, but now that the additional traffic lights have been put in, we have huge tailbacks.

Mr. Edward Davey: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that all traffic-calming and road-safety measures cause congestion? The Minister for London and Construction was kind and helpful in working with local police and me to reduce the speed limit on the A3 Kingston bypass, which has improved the flow of traffic on that road and so reduced congestion.

Mr. Ottaway: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the reduction in speed on the A3 Kingston bypass is popular, he has another think coming.

Mr. Davey: It is popular in my constituency.

Mr. Ottaway: Perhaps it is in the hon. Gentleman's, but it certainly is not in mine.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not want to distract the hon. Gentleman from the wider issues, but I am perplexed.

Is he arguing that, for example, many more bus lanes in London would be a bad thing because, although they would allow buses a greater speed of travel, they would have an adverse impact on car users? If we enhance the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and the speed of buses, we are bound occasionally to run the risk of car transport being slowed, but that might be an incentive for people to use different forms of transport, or to go around London rather than through it.

Mr. Ottaway: I certainly do not suggest that all the measures are not wanted. My point is that I think that the balance might have begun to tip too far in one direction. If a speed limit of 25 mph were to be imposed throughout London, the whole city would grind to halt, just as a 25-mph speed limit on a motorway would clog up the whole road, because any trip would take twice as long and twice as many cars would be on the same stretch of road. There has to be joined-up thinking—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have seen an awful lot of the hon. Gentleman's back in the past few minutes. He should address the Chair.

Mr. Ottaway: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was carried away by the interventions.
Before the Liberal Democrats put out their press releases saying "Tories oppose safety measures", alongside the one about the cracked paving stone, they should think seriously. Their holy grail appears to be the removal of congestion from London's roads, but that is unachievable, because if a motorist sees an empty road, the first thing he will do is drive down it—he will not take the bus. Congestion, once cleared, will return. The point is that many of the safety measures slow down traffic in London, and those measures are the result of Government decisions.
The Government have given three reasons for proposing to introduce a congestion tax: first, to persuade the motorist to leave his car behind; secondly, to reduce pollution; and, thirdly, to raise taxes for transport purposes. Will the Minister, through the congestion tax, persuade the people of London to leave their cars behind? The AA report "New leadership for London: transport in the capital", under the heading "Car ownership", states:
The number of cars per London household is lower than many other parts of Great Britain, reflecting the cost of parking and the availability and accessibility of public transport.
Were I to introduce an anti-congestion scheme and someone were to tell me that lower car ownership had resulted, I should say that I had achieved my objective. However, the availability of public transport in central London is already achieving the objective of keeping London traffic movements at a lower level than they would be if public transport were not available—all the evidence suggests that the availability of public transport in London keeps cars off the roads.
In Committee, we examined in depth the pilot scheme in Leicester. The Minister for Transport in London said that she would publish the results when they became available, and I assume that she is a woman of her word. However, early reports from that scheme give rise to serious questions about whether imposing a congestion tax on motorists will make much difference to their habits. Early reports from Leicester indicate that it takes a


road-use charge of £6 to make a motorist change his pattern of behaviour. It is believed that in London the figure would be nearer £8. I do not think that even this Government would have the gall to introduce a £8 charge on motorists every time they made a journey in London. Given that they would not do that, it follows logically that a lesser sum would not deter anyone. So what do we have? We have a revenue stream. It is a tax by the back door. It is yet another example of a stealth tax.
7 pm
What will happen in the London boroughs? In Croydon, there are reports that the council intends to produce a congestion tax that will bear on motorists entering London once the Bill is enacted. Apart from ensuring the re-election of the Conservative group at the next borough elections, what will be the net effect? The answer is that local shoppers will go to the new Blue Water retail development near the M25 rather than pay to go to Croydon. The congestion tax may solve the problem of congestion in Croydon, but it will make it into a ghost town.
A good example is provided by Bath, where the Liberal Democrat council has raised parking charges to such a high level that there has been a 7 per cent. fall-off in the local economy. The House must recognise that one cannot impose a congestion tax in isolation and expect there to be no knock-on factors.

Mr. James Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who are most in favour of congestion charges are those who want to drive on our roads? The main purpose of a congestion tax is to get everybody else off the road so that the road is freer for oneself.

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have yet to hear anyone advocating a congestion tax who does not drive himself.
The second objective of the congestion tax is to reduce pollution. Notwithstanding my point that the tax is unlikely to affect volumes, it is possible to reduce pollution without the confrontational approach of extra taxation upon the motorist.
Such have been the advances and technological developments in the production and construction of engines that a car manufactured 30 years ago emitted 95 per cent. more toxic waste from the back end than would a car produced now. That has been achieved by co-operation with the motor industry and without the need to introduce a congestion tax. We must try to remove the final 5 per cent. without imposing a charge. I am sure that the technology is available to produce the ultimate clean car. The Conservative party would encourage the motor industry to do so. It would also give every encouragement to cars powered by liquefied gas or electricity.
It is worth noting that Oxford street, which is considered to be one of the more polluted areas in the country, is a street from which the car is excluded. The pollution tends to be the result of emissions from diesel engines in taxis and lorries. However, the Government must not use the environment as an excuse to impose a charge when other options are available.
The Government's final, unashamed reason for imposing a congestion tax on Londoners is that it will create a revenue stream for the mayor. The Liberal party

has been eyeing this up and has given it its full support. In "Yes, Minister", when the Minister in that programme was about to make a controversial decision, Sir Humphrey used to say, "Very courageous, Minister, very courageous." It is very courageous of the Government to be advocating an additional tax on London. They are doing so unashamedly with the full intention of creating a revenue stream for the mayor.
The Government should be aware, however, of a recent report contained in a confidential Scotland Yard memo, according to the Evening Standard, which warns that there could be
a violent backlash by drivers, increasingly angered by moves to penalise them at every turn. A separate Government-commissioned study has also warned that drivers' acceptance of technology that charges them for driving on roads-and traps them when they don't pay-cannot be relied upon.
The congestion tax will not be an easy measure to introduce. It is a courageous decision on the part of the Government to introduce it. I do not believe that anyone will become the London mayor on a pledge to introduce the tax.

Mr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware of the report by the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the integrated transport White Paper, which was produced last week? It comes to three clear conclusions on congestion charging. The first is that it must be 100 per cent. hypothecated. Secondly, it must be totally additional to any present expenditure. Thirdly, it must be permanent. We know that the Government are proposing congestion charging for 10 years. The Sub-Committee was plain that it must not form a revenue stream for the Government, the Treasury or local government.

Mr. Ottaway: We talk of nothing else in Croydon. I intend to address all three points that my hon. Friend has sensibly and wisely raised. Early reports suggest that the congestion tax could raise £200 million a year. First, it must be questioned whether that is enough. In Committee, the Minister made it clear that this money would not necessarily be used as a subsidy for London underground, and referred to road improvements or traffic-related improvements. I venture to suggest that improving London's roads or traffic-related schemes will need more than £200 million a year.
We congratulate the Government on the halfhearted establishment of the principle of ring-fencing and hypothecating the proceeds of any congestion tax. However, any congratulation must be tempered by two factors, one of which we believe to be fatal. First, the funding is ring-fenced for only 10 years in the Bill. That obviously prompts the question: what will happen after 10 years. In our opinion, the answer is clear. The money will go to the Treasury coffers. If it is to be ring-fenced, that should be the position in perpetuity and not for a limited period. To that extent we welcome the conclusion of the Sub-Committee to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred.
Secondly, the greatest weakness of the Government's proposal—in our view the fatal one—is the additionality factor. I have no doubt that a Chancellor seeing a mayor with a revenue stream of £200 million a year would immediately dock £200 million from his transport grant to London, with the result that the people of London
would be no better off. If the Minister is to reassure me that that will not happen, it will be clear that the Department has fought the battle over hypothecation. If so, why does it not fight the battle over additionality and enshrine the result in the Bill?
We do not have to look far for a good current example, and that is next year's funding for London underground, about which there has been much discussion today. All the early signs are that that funding will have to come out of the road maintenance programme. If ever there were a classic example of having to rob Peter to pay Paul, this is it.

Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right about additionality. Why, then, did the Conservative party not support my hon. Friends and me yesterday when we tried, through an amendment to clause 86, to ensure that the Greater London Authority transport grant increased year on year, so that funding from central Government to Transport for London would not be a problem?

Mr. Ottaway: Because I had no idea that that is what the Liberals were voting on. As I read the amendment, it described something entirely different. In any event, I do not feel slavishly bound to follow the Liberals through the Division Lobby on every occasion. We know that they have a pious coalition deal, which they keep denying. The Conservative party makes up its own mind, introduces its own amendments and votes when it thinks appropriate rather than letting the Liberals decide for it. The Liberals could easily have joined us in the Lobby just now, as their spokesman endorsed every point that I made on the public-private partnership.
We oppose the congestion tax because it is a back-door tax—a stealth tax. It will not solve the problems of congestion in London, it will not ease pollution, it will damage local economies and it will hit the vulnerable. I urge the House to support our amendments.

Mr. Darvill: I support the Government amendments and oppose the Conservative proposal to delete clause 222. The Government's proposal is not to impose road charging. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly said in his intervention, the permissive provisions in the Bill would allow charging by the mayor and the London boroughs.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said that the balance between public transport and road congestion was moving the other way. That may be so in some areas, but surely it is a matter for each London borough to decide in accordance with local circumstances. On a Londonwide scale, it is a matter for the London boroughs, the mayor and the Greater London Authority to put before the electorate. If the Conservative amendment were accepted and clause 222 deleted, that possibility would be removed from councillors and candidates at the GLA election next year, which would be a disservice to the people of London.

Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the conclusions of the oft-quoted Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport

and Regional Affairs? The Sub-Committee's report on the White Paper on integrated transport were published last week. The hon. Gentleman's colleagues concluded that it would be wrong to allow any local authority to make up its own mind about congestion charging, as that would drive traffic into the neighbouring local authority. Labour members of the Transport Sub-Committee therefore supported a regional strategy only for congestion charging. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore differ from his hon. Friends on the Committee?

Mr. Darvill: Yes. Local councillors need to take a broader perspective. I would propose a sub-regional approach. Councillors and members of the GLA will have to think much more broadly. I have not read the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I understand the argument. My view is that the debate must take place on a Londonwide basis, recognising local conditions and the position of Londoners as a whole and the commuter transport implications.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the Government were not advocating road user charging, despite the appearance to the contrary—after all, as he knows, clause 222 dangles that prospect. In the light of what his hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, in a characteristically arrogant fashion, about the likelihood of a Labour mayor being elected, would the hon. Gentleman advocate a Labour mayor supporting such charges—yes or no?

Mr. Darvill: The debate on the Labour manifesto and the manifestos of candidates for mayor will take place in the coming months. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South about the balance.
In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), if the clause is removed from the Bill, that debate will not take place. It is taking place now in the Chamber, but, if the amendment is accepted, there will be no possibility of candidates for mayor and the GLA, and councillors in the London boroughs, debating the matter locally. For that reason, the provision should remain in the Bill.
I recognise that there will be competing arguments. For example, when a bus lane is created, there is often opposition from car users, but support from those who use the public services. There is opposition from people who may be affected by rat running as a result of the new bus lane, and local measures may be proposed to avoid that. All that takes place locally.
I support the measure because the revenues to be raised from the charges are hypothecated. I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Croydon, South about the longer-term nature of the investment. The longer term must be taken into account in the decision-making process. The hypothecation of the revenues over a longer period would give much greater scope for investment. However, in subsequent elections, a party that opposed hypothecation after, say, 10 years could put its alternative proposals to the electorate. Those proposals might be unpopular, but parties would nevertheless need to consider the long term when formulating their policies.

Mr. Gray: Am I right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman is arguing in favour of hypothecation being


permanent? If so, does he realise that it will be necessary for him to vote against the Government in the forthcoming Division?

Mr. Darvill: I said that I had some sympathy with the argument for longer-term hypothecation. However, I support the Bill because it moves in an important direction and, with regard to hypothecation, it is unique in law making in this country. That is warmly welcomed, and the benefits will become apparent. It enables the argument about road charging to take place against the background of the resulting benefits and the scope for investing the revenues in public transport.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman's tone is immensely reasonable. What is less reasonable is his unwillingness to tell us whether a Labour candidate for mayor should advocate road charging. As his party has included the provision in the Bill, does he understand that some of us are eagerly waiting, with beads of sweat on our brow, for Pandora's box to be opened so that we can discover the earnest intentions of Labour Members?

Mr. Darvill: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's patience will be rewarded in due course. I am happy to give my opinion, but other colleagues may have different opinions. When we have formulated our policies, we will have the debate. I believe that there is considerable merit in road charging, provided that the revenues are used to improve public transport. The charges will be unpopular with some people, but, if those who pay them can see the benefits in improved public transport, the policy will be much more popular than Conservative Members think.
Most members of the public who have to travel in and out of London and use their cars to do so realise that a major problem is building up, no matter who is in government and no matter who controls the GLA. Local traffic problems apply in local areas. The public want those problems to be resolved. They know that resolving such problems is difficult and often requires increased capital investment, but the road charging provisions are a way of squaring that circle. That is why I do not believe that they are as unpopular as Conservative Members say.
I hope that hon. Members will oppose the Opposition amendment and support the amendments that would facilitate discussions on hypothecation and the detail of the Bill.

Mr. Brake: I shall speak against the Conservative amendment and in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments.
What would be the effect of the Tory amendment? It would simply remove the possibility—not the certainty—of road user charging. However, if road user charging were implemented after the viable public transport alternatives were put in place, it could play a major role in raising funds for investment in public transport, in improving the health of the one child in seven who suffers from asthma and in helping the United Kingdom to meet its CO2 reduction targets. Finally, it could play a major role in helping the boroughs to deliver

on their target of a 10 per cent. reduction in road traffic, which was agreed under the previous Government and which they have to hit.

Mr. Ottaway: May I take it from the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrats will be campaigning in next year's mayoral elections on a pledge to introduce road user charging?

Mr. Brake: ; I am happy to respond to that intervention. My understanding is that one of the Conservative contenders for mayor, Steve Norris, has indicated his support for the proposals. We have clearly said that we see a role for road user charging in reducing congestion in London. I am happy for that to go on the record.
The official Opposition have to confirm whether they are committed to the targets for CO2 reduction to which the Government have signed up and whether they are committed to the road traffic reduction targets in the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997, which was passed when the previous Government were still in office. Are they doing a U-turn on that issue, as on so many others?
Even if the official Opposition are not convinced of the environmental arguments in favour of road user charging, are they not convinced that investment will arise from charges? In the unlikely event of a Conservative mayor or a Conservative Government being elected, how would they fund the investment that was needed? They have been distinctly quiet on that key point.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has obviously forgotten that, only last week, he was one of those who voted in favour of the oft-quoted report of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. The report said, in absolutely straightforward terms, that road charging must be hypothecated, additional and permanent, and must not be used for revenue streams of any kind. It appears that he is, in classic Liberal fashion, arguing exactly the opposite of what he signed up to last week.

Mr. Brake: On the contrary, I am arguing in favour of everything listed by the Committee in its report. I shall come to those points in a moment.
Road user charging must involve additionality, which is why we tabled an amendment to that effect yesterday. It did not receive the support of the official Opposition, apparently because they did not understand what it meant. Road user charging must be hypothecated for the purposes of public transport, cycling and walking, which is why we have tabled an amendment on that subject. It must also be hypothecated permanently, and we have tabled an amendment to that effect.
It is clear that we cannot possibly support the Conservative amendment, which is all to do with political opportunism—a splurge in the media a few days before an election. It pays no regard to London's environment or to the investment needs of London Transport.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in a debate that is extraordinarily important—not only to proceedings on the Bill, but to the recent general discussion on transport, particularly in the context of the integrated transport White Paper. The White Paper is much lauded by Labour Members and, as I have had
occasion to say once or twice, the Transport Sub-Committee studied it recently and produced a report last week.
If we are to address the problems that we all face in cities and towns across this small country of ours, we will have to address the question of congestion. I take issue with speakers on both sides of the House—Liberal Democrat and Labour Members—who have suggested that, somehow or other, Her Majesty's official Opposition are opposed to reducing congestion. Of course we are not; all along—when we were in government for 18 triumphant years and since—we have made it plain that we are wholeheartedly in favour of reducing congestion. It is terribly important that we should do so for health reasons, because of air pollution and so that people can get about the town.
That brings me on slightly, to a point to which I alluded a moment ago. Most commentators produce ideas on environmental questions, not necessarily because they believe that they will carry them out, but because they hope that everyone else will carry them out. Two or three examples spring to mind. All my constituents talk gaily about how important it is to support village shops—and, indeed, it is—but, goodness me, they spend £5 in the village shop once a week and then zip round to Sainsbury's by road to spend £200 or —300 on their week's shopping. Although they pay lip service to reducing congestion by using the village shop, they contribute to it by going to Safeway or Sainsbury's.
The same applies to road user charging. People talk about reducing congestion in central London, for example. They say, "Until now, I have been using my motor car to get to central London. I would like you, Mr. Mayor, to introduce road user charging. That will hurt me in my pocket, so I will give up my car and get on the underground." Oh, no, that is not what they mean at all. They mean, "I want you, Mr. Mayor, to introduce road user charging. That will mean that there will be a great reduction in traffic across London, so I can drive into the office much more quickly than I have been for the past two or three years." That is entirely selfish and entirely the opposite of what is proposed.
The Government seem to be in nirvana. They think that, somehow, introducing this road tax—an entry fee of £10 according to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), although I hope that that figure is wrong—will make people better and make London a better place. All it will mean is that company car users will lob the fee back to their company accountants. Millionaires driving their Rolls-Royces will not be bothered about a fee—they would pay £8 or £10 with no trouble at all, and would pay £10, £20 or £30 for parking. They would not care about that. However, old people who need their motor cars to get to the shops, disabled people who cannot et down the steps into the underground and poor people who cannot afford to pay £10 would be damaged by such a fee.
Road user charges would have exactly the opposite effect to that which the Government describe, but would encourage the people whom I mentioned to say, "Fine. I have a big BMW and I work in a bank in the City of London. I do not care about road user charges. Indeed,

they will make things even better because the roads of London will be clear for me to zip along at 90 miles an hour."

Mr. Darvill: A borough or a mayor introducing such a scheme would take into account, through concessionary measures, people with disabilities. Would that not answer the hon. Gentleman's point? Moreover, the groups to which he referred would benefit from improved public transport.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a point that he made in his thoughtful speech, which was about allowing individual boroughs to do different things. Let us imagine a situation in which the borough of Hackney signs up to road user charging and is determined to keep cars out of the borough. It may say, "We will charge road users £20 so that no one comes through the borough." Given the ring of steel around the City of London, the City of London would almost certainly say, "Fine. We are determined to deter cars from going through the City of London, so we will charge road users £100." My friend the fat cat in his BMW would not care about that. Those who would care are people in the borough of Islington and boroughs south of the river, which would be used as rat runs by those avoiding the heavy charges.
Allowing a borough to make up its own mind on road user charging would have exactly the opposite effect from that described by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). That point was brought out clearly in the Labour-dominated Select Committee report last week, which deals not with London, but with other parts of the country. It says that it would be wrong if a local authority had the right to make up its own mind about road user charging or parking charges because that would have an appalling effect on neighbouring boroughs and councils. It says that such decisions should be made by the regions. I do not recall exactly what the report says, but it was said in the Select Committee discussions that the regional development agencies, or possibly the elected regional governments—if, heaven forfend, those ever come about—might be the right bodies to make those decisions. If local authorities were allowed to make them, the effect on neighbouring councils would be deleterious.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I believe is a member of the Select Committee to which he refers. Everyone in the House welcomes his interest in this debate, but this is clearly the first time that he has turned his mind to the Bill, because he is under a total misapprehension with regard to the introduction of road user charging within London. Boroughs must fit into a mayoral strategy. It will be for the mayor to decide whether to introduce such charges. Boroughs must be part and parcel of that strategy, and the Secretary of State will examine how the money will be spent. The figures which the hon. Gentleman is tossing across the Floor of the Chamber are absurd. I am delighted that he has at last managed to manifest an interest in our deliberations.

Mr. Gray: I was merely answering an intervention by the hon. Member for Upminster, who suggested that charging should differ from borough to borough. I am surprised that the Minister was not clearer about the fact


that I serve on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. I am proud to do so. Given the hard time that we gave her on one or two of her appearances before the Select Committee recently, I should have thought that our faces, if not our names, would be engraved on her memory.

Mr. Ottaway: Perhaps she is too thick-skinned.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend suggests that the Minister may be too thick-skinned to be aware of that. Perhaps he is right, but I would not be so ungentlemanly as to suggest it.
What is the purpose of road user charging? My thesis is that it will not achieve the aims that the Government have set up for it. It sounds like a frightfully good idea if it is to reduce road usage, but it will reduce road usage for the wrong people and allow those who do not care about the cost to continue to use the roads. It is rather like the recent increase in petrol charges, which has damaged my rural constituency, poor people and the disabled.
The hon. Member for Upminster also suggested that road user charging might enable disabled people to use public transport. I do not know about the disabled people in his constituency, but there are many disabled people in my constituency who could not use public transport under any circumstances. Flippantly to suggest that they should be charged off the roads in the hope that that will make public transport better is not a particularly caring point to make.

Mr. Darvill: The point that I made was twofold: first, that concessionary arrangements could be made for disabled people; and, secondly, that an increased investment in public transport might benefit some disabled people. I was not making a cursory suggestion; I was saying that there are two sides to the argument that road user charging could benefit the groups that we were discussing.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. I hope that he will forgive me for misquoting him, but I was thinking on my feet. He makes a good point. The more reductions there are for old people and the disabled, the better. Even better, however, would be no user charging at all. We would then not have to worry about concessions for the old, the disabled and the poor.

Mr. Brake: The hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives believe that congestion needs to be tackled. Perhaps he is about to explain how.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful for that question, but I fear that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I launched into a wider discussion on transport and how to reduce congestion on the roads. We are discussing the proposals in the Bill for road user charging within London. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could have an interesting discussion about reducing congestion in the context of the Select Committee, but I would be trying your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I dealt with it now.
I wish to concentrate for a moment or two on the three aspects of road user charging that I find particularly unattractive. Labour Members talk gaily about hypothecation, but Treasury officials with whom we did

battle over 18 years have always gone to lengths to say that there can be no such thing. Hypothecation does not fit in the Treasury's theology, for the good reason that, if a public duty should be carried out, it should be carried out through taxation. Hypothecation is a misleading way of pretending that, somehow, taxation is being put to a particular use.
Worthwhile measures such as improving the transport infrastructure in London will cost much more than the funds raised through road user charging. If the Government then say, "We are sorry, but we don't intend to do those things because they are more expensive than the money that we have raised from road user charging," they will be wrong. If we have to look after those with asthma, reduce pollution and facilitate movement around the centre of London, the GLA should do that, irrespective of how much money it raises from road user charging. Treasury mandarins always tell me that hypothecation does not work for that reason.
If one is to hypothecate, additionality is crucial. It must be possible to demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that the project for which the money is being used would not, under any circumstances, have been undertaken anyhow. The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee is discussing bus lanes, improving the roads and all kinds of projects that should be undertaken by any Government. Additionality, which is absolutely central to road user charging, means providing for transport users something that they would not otherwise have. If the money is simply used to improve the underground or the road lights in Clapham high street, it is a wrong use of road users' money.
My next point—it is the main thing that is wrong with the proposals-is that the arrangement must also be permanent. It must not be for just a few years. The GLA must not be able to say, "Londoners will not notice. We shall charge them a few pounds for a few years, and they will then forget about it. We shall then bring the charges into the mayor's funds," or, in the case of the Labour party, into the Treasury's funds. That is a straightforward con. The Government are telling the public, "We're going to take this money off you. We're going to pretend that it's for transport use of one sort or another. Don't you all want cycle tracks? Don't you all want to encourage pedestrians"—as the Liberal Democrats are always reminding us—"and don't you want to improve roads? I'm sure you're all very fed up with the congestion in London. It must be awful when you're trying to get to work and the roads are all congested. Don't worry, we're going to charge you £8 a time when you come into London, and we're going to use the money to put those things right for you. Aren't we a wonderful Government?" However, there is a postscript at the bottom in very small print, which reads, "But only for 10 years."

Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the precedents that the Government have established in other areas of public policy in the past 24 months offer us no confidence that a road user charging policy would be operated on the basis of additionality—rather, the contrary applies?

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes that point extremely well. Our experience in the past 24 months shows that the Government will put a spin on the measure and will make out that it will help the public, but the truth is that it will help no one other than themselves.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) alluded to revenue flows for the mayor. The Government are not even covering their nakedness by pretending that the revenue is additional, that it is for transport and that it is permanent. They have the brass neck to say, "It is only for 10 years and then we'll have the cash. What would the poor old mayor do if he didn't have road user charging, because he wouldn't have any money? The poor old mayor needs the cash. He needs the revenue flow. What's the point of having a mayor without the revenue flow? Road user charging is terribly important, because it gives the mayor some cash."

Mr. Clive Efford: Is the hon. Gentleman not overlooking the issue of accountability? The mayor will be directly elected by the people of London, and will be accountable for the policies that he or she puts into place. If a mayor were to do what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting regarding future investment in public transport in London, he or she would soon be accountable to the people and would be out of office.

Mr. Gray: The accountability point is a good one. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It will be extraordinarily interesting to see in the manifestos of the various candidates for mayor whether they sign up to an £8 or £10 road user charge. Labour candidates—who knows, the Minister may be one—may be brave enough to say, "Please vote for me, because I'm going to charge you £8 if you come into London." I would be bold enough to say that accountability would work, and, if the hon. Lady were such a candidate, she would certainly not be elected.
It was interesting that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, when challenged on this point by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, went to some lengths to avoid saying whether a Liberal Democrat candidate for mayor would be upfront and would say that he would introduce road user charging. The Conservative party is clear: we would not bring in road user charging in London. We have tabled the amendment to prevent road charging from being introduced, so that, even if an elected mayor wanted to do so, he could not.
The Conservative party is the only party in the Chamber that has made its position clear—none of the minority parties is present, except the Liberal Democrats. Her Majesty's official Opposition are making it absolutely plain that we wholeheartedly oppose congestion charging in London. Our mayoral candidate will stand on that manifesto. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) is quite right in saying that accountability comes into it, and, if mayoral candidates from other parties stand boldly in front of Londoners and say, "We're going to charge you guys for using our roads," they will lose.

Mr. Efford: If accountability comes into it, should the mayor not have the right to choose whether to introduce road charging? By taking his approach, would the hon. Gentleman not be denying the democratic right of the people of London to choose whether they want road pricing?

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. However, with the amendment, we are trying to protect

the people of London from the stealth tax that the Government propose to introduce in the Bill. We are opposed to congestion charging. We do not believe in charging Londoners £8 or £10 to use their own roads. The Labour party does, and the Liberal Democrats may or may not£but, as usual, it is not certain. That is true accountability. I am sure that, if the debate is reported—I hope that it will be reported during the campaign for the mayoral elections—it will be absolutely plain that the Conservative party is wholeheartedly opposed to road congestion charging. We have spoken against it for some time, but the other parties are in favour of it. It is worth putting it on the record that the Conservative party is the only party opposed to road user charging.
It should be made clear that the proposal that the amendment would change is not about congestion, health, air quality or any of the worthy issues that some hon. Members have referred to, but about revenue for the mayor. If done nationally, it is about revenue for the Treasury. That is one of the strongest reasons why we have tabled the amendment.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: As there is such interest in what intending candidates for mayor would do, I can tell the House that I was initially sceptical about the congestion tax. I was aware of the origins of the tax. It was not drawn up in Labour party headquarters, and it is not some product of a leftie think tank: it comes from the neo-liberal, Thatcherite right. Milton Friedman and others argued for a congestion tax. According to my broader version of it, it is a flat-rate tax, like the poll tax. It would not be my tax of first choice to fund transport, but it is an integral part of the Government's transport strategy for Britain.
London is being given the chance to introduce this tax ahead of the rest of the country, largely because if it cannot work here, it will not work anywhere else in Britain. We still have a good public transport infrastructure and a degree of congestion that makes the case.
I think that there is wide public acceptance that something like a congestion tax must be introduced. The debate will be about the levels. [Interruption.] I see Conservative Members shaking their heads, but I have received detailed documents from broadly business organisations in London calling for a £5 tax. Taxi drivers, who are not normally part of the militant tendency, are talking about £7.50, although they think that they should be exempt. That is understandable, because the taxi trade should be integrated into the overall Government public transport strategy.

Mr. Ottaway: Before the hon. Gentleman is completely seduced by the pleas of the business community in support of the road user tax, he should be aware that it is trying to distract attention from the workplace parking levy, which affects businesses. If he reads on, he will find that businesses are opposed to the workplace parking levy, and that they want the man on the street—or, more to the point, the man behind the wheel—to pay the extra taxes rather than business.

Mr. Livingstone: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I find the car park tax a more attractive proposition, because it is not a flat-rate tax.


To provide the extra resources that London needs to have a dramatic improvement in the quality of public transport, money has to come from somewhere else. The Government will not suddenly open their coffers to London so that there is a great flood of extra resources. As London is substantially more wealthy than the rest of the United Kingdom, and inner London is the richest region anywhere in the European Union, it is not unreasonable that we look to Londoners to pay part of the price of improving the quality of public transport.
A list of proposals is rapidly building up among candidates across the political spectrum. Jeffrey Archer wants high-speed bus lanes. Proposals for new buses from the outskirts, conductors back on the buses and improved cleaning of the buses will require money. I think that Londoners would be prepared to pay a reasonable sum to see an improvement in the quality of public transport, so that people are encouraged to leave their cars at home.
The tax could be introduced in a divisive and counter-productive way. It could be a massive levy dumped on Londoners without first seeing some improvement in the quality of public transport. I have not the slightest doubt that the Labour party manifesto for the mayor and assembly for London, and all the leading Labour candidates for the assembly and the mayoralty, will propose a phased introduction and tying the tax to a real improvement in the quality of public transport. That will produce the circumstances in which we can recreate the impact that the Greater London council's fares cut had in 1981 of getting people to leave their cars at home and switch to public transport.
Careful handling and planning will be needed. We shall have to listen to what Londoners say about the level at which the charge should be set, and the areas that will be affected. We shall have to be cautious. It would be a great mistake to set this tax at a level that would cause a public backlash, or to create the impression that we favour an anti-car strategy rather than a pro-public transport strategy.
I think that, during the debate that will take place in the coming year as the election of mayor becomes closer, we shall see that Londoners are prepared to pay that bit more to put a public transport system that previous Administrations have ignored for the best part of two decades back on its feet, and to ensure that it is effective, efficient and clean. At the same time, encouraging people to leave their cars at home by means of the combination of a congestion tax and improved public transport will lead to a better quality of life in London as pollution, congestion and the number of accidents are reduced.
I see the attraction to the Tory party of an opportunity to say, "This is just another tax. We are opposed to it, as we are opposed to every tax." The Tories will have to answer a question, however: where will the money needed to improve public transport come from if they turn their backs on the tax measures that the Government are giving Londoners a chance to implement? For we are talking about Londoners: it will be Londoners who go to the polls next May knowing where their candidates—Tory, Liberal and Labour—stand on the issue. I have no doubt that they will cast their votes, by an overwhelming majority, for candidates who are prepared to use these taxes to improve public transport and the quality of life in our city.

Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) for bringing us back

to reality, and for referring to the need to tackle congestion. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) took us down an odd path when he spoke of paying £5 in his village shop and £300 in the nearest supermarket, especially as no London Conservative Members were present at the time.
Congestion is a huge problem in the capital. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said that it had not increased in the past 20 years, but that is because it is so bad. It is a real problem in both inner and outer London. When I knock on doors in my constituency, I find that people raise the issue of traffic congestion time and again. They want the Government to give a lead.
We have not talked about the market economics behind road use charges. The Conservative party used to be the party that believed in market economics and price signals. One reason for traffic congestion is that public highways are a free good: people do not have to pay to use them. Basic macro-economic theory shows that, when a free good is available, people tend to use far too much, because they do not have to pay for it. When a price mechanism is introduced, people are given a signal to help them to make choices, and resources can be allocated more efficiently across society.

Mr. Howard Flight: Does the hon. Gentleman apply the same arguments to the national health service, as his logic suggests?

Mr. Davey: I can see from your frown, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you do want me to stray too far from the amendment, so I shall be careful about how I answer that question. The national health service was established to be free at the point of use: that was one of its basic notions.
People want to be able to travel along Britain's roads without the problem of congestion, and they want the Government to come up with policies to prevent it. That is the thinking behind this policy. We need only consider the incentives that will result from road user charging. People will ask themselves, "Do I really have to take that journey in my car? Is there an alternative?" Not only Londoners, but those living in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire who are coming to London may think twice. Perhaps they will leave their Mercedes at home and get on the train, even if they are as wealthy as they seem to be.

Mr. Gray: I did not suggest at any stage that my constituents were wealthy. That is not the point that I was making, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The hon. Gentleman wants the tax to be used to drive people off the roads, and leave them open to those who can easily afford to pay it. It is a rich man's tax. The rich man in his Jaguar will be fine, while the poor man will have to stay at home.

Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening. What I said was that a price signal would lead people, rich or poor, to think about their journeys and about the alternatives. In fact, most people on low incomes do not use cars. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics, he will find that the public transport system will be massively improved for those who use public transport most at present by the revenue streams that will be generated. Those on low incomes stand to benefit.


Although congestion charges are right in principle, for the economic reasons that I have given and the environmental reasons given by other speakers, they will work only if there is a political consensus, not just here but in the wider London population. In that respect, I fear that the Government are not doing their own policies a service in regard to their presentation in both the Bill and the media. In this instance, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire was right: he complained that the Government had not ring-fenced the revenues from road user charges effectively. The Government are not guaranteeing to those who will pay that the charges will be ploughed back permanently into public transport in the capital.
The hon. Gentleman made two points in that regard. First, he made a point about additionality. We need to ensure that the revenues raised constitute additional funds. That is why the Liberal Democrats argued yesterday and in Committee that the Greater London Authority transport grant—the money that the Government currently suggest should go to Transport for London—should be maintained in real terms. If a future Chancellor could say, "Mr. Mayor"—or Mrs. Mayor—"now that you have your revenues from road user charges, you will not need the transport grant any longer", it would undermine public support for the charges in London.
Additionality is a key part of ensuring that road user charges are saleable to the public, but another key part is ensuring that they are ring-fenced. After the Second Reading debate, the Government relented and in Committee, by means of schedule 18, they inserted a complex set of paragraphs in an attempt to persuade people that they would ring-fence the revenues for 10 years; but, as we said in Committee, we do not feel that they have actually done that, and detailed scrutiny of schedule 18 will prove that we are right. Ministers did not accept our argument in Committee, but, even if they do not accept it now, the Government ought to consider it seriously in the other place. It is in their interests, and in the interests of those who want to reduce congestion, for the tax to be made saleable.
Paragraph 17(6) of the schedule sets out in detail how the 10-year period will be measured. Paragraph 17 introduces the concept of the initial period, at the start of the 10 years; sub-paragraph (6) specifies how the time when that initial period began will be judged. Under the sub-paragraph, effectively, the Secretary of State can deem that a particular road user charging scheme has been changed in some way. Perhaps the rates have changed; perhaps the district boundaries have changed. The Secretary of State can then say, "This is a different scheme", and the initial period will therefore be deemed to have come to an end.
8 pm
As the initial period has come to end, the revenues will no longer be available solely and exclusively for investment in London Transport. I do not say that to make a political point. I am trying genuinely to be helpful to the Government because I want to ensure that they achieve in legislation what they say they want to achieve: to ring-fence the revenues.
That is not the only aspect of road user charging that we need to address to ensure that the new charges are saleable politically. We need to ensure that there are

improvements in the public transport system up front. People who are going to be asked to pay the charges need to know that they will get benefits. As we have seen in the first two years of the management of London's underground and public transport system, such improvements to London's public transport system have not occurred. That is likely to occur again now that the Government have gone down the path of PPP schemes.
What may happen is that the charges will be introduced, people will be asked to pay and then they will not see any benefit for several years. That is not a politically sensible strategy. I am incredibly worried about that because I want congestion to be tackled. Charging may be one of a package of measures that will help, but it will fall at the first hurdle if we do not persuade people that it is in their interests—that it will tackle the problems that we are all concerned about.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to examine the way in which the Government are putting the road user charges element of their public transport strategy for London together, as well as the money that they are investing in London underground and other aspects of London's public transport.
I am particularly concerned about the following point, which was mentioned in the previous debate, but is relevant now: the money for London's public transport system from April 2000. At the moment, no one is clear, least of all in the management of London Transport, where the money will come from to maintain the infrastructure, to invest in the system and to ensure that improvements are achieved. If the managers of the system are not sure where the money is coming from less than a year before that financial year starts, clearly, they cannot make the proper investment plans and strategies that are needed.
Those are my two concerns about the way in which the Government are approaching the matter. First, they are not ensuring that the money is fully hypothecated and will be genuinely additional. Secondly, their overall transport strategy is not ensuring that there will be benefits up front for the people who will need to use the alternatives to cars or motor transport. Indeed, the alternative is public transport.
I do not think that Ministers can get away with leaving it to a future mayor. They cannot duck responsibility on the matter. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Brent, East, who may turn out to be a mayoral candidate, is now on record as saying that he supports road user charges. He has a legitimate point about the level of those charges. There will be a debate on that, but I am glad that, in principle, he is now in favour.
We have heard that at least one putative Conservative candidate—my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) mentioned him earlier—may be in favour of the scheme. Apparently, Lord Archer is against. He has taken the populist, opportunist Tory line, but it is possible that candidates who are against road user charges might win the mayoral elections.
The Minister cannot push that point aside and say that a Labour candidate will win. It is possible that a candidate from another party, or an independent candidate who is opposed to road user charges, will win. If that person has made a case against road user charges, that not only puts


a massive hole in the Government's strategy for London Transport, but may put a huge hole in the finances of the PPP and London Transport.

Ms Glenda Jackson: We have been round this course in Committee. I say to the hon. Gentleman again, as I said to him then, that the modelling for the PPP is not based on any funding from either road congestion charging, or a levy on workplace parking. I repeat to him for about the sixth time that the financial modelling for the PPP is not dependent on any revenues from congestion charging.

Mr. Davey: The reason why the Minister keeps having to repeat that point is that she will not publish the report that contains the modelling so that the House can see it before it passes the Bill. If she and her colleagues had the decency to publish that report, so that we could scrutinise and analyse it, the matter might be a little more open, the debates might be a little more fruitful and we would not have to make a stab in the dark about where the calculations are coming from.
In a constructive spirit, I say that the Government have to make the case for road user charges. We know that it will be politically difficult to sell. No one is under any illusions about that, but unless they create the framework properly and sensibly in the first place, making that case will be incredibly difficult.

Mr. Efford: The issue inspires much passion among people outside the House. If there were a referendum on the issue, there might be a higher turnout than in the local elections tomorrow. I recall having a public meeting about the closure of a hospital in my constituency and booking a rather large hall, expecting thousands of people to turn up; 110 did so. When I had a similar meeting on the introduction of speed humps in a short road, the same number turned up.
I have concerns about the introduction of road charging. We need to take a sequential approach to the issue, the first being that we need to charge at the place where people park. We need to end the process of allowing out-of-town centre developments with huge car parks that one can land jumbo jets on, which have free parking.
One of the concerns that I have, representing an outer London constituency, is that it is likely to be close to one of the areas where a booth or machine for charging for entrance to London will be sited. Many people from outside London use my town centre, which is likely to be the other side of the toll booth, or whatever it is going to be. That would place my town centre at a disadvantage. I know that other hon. Members representing other town centres and other cities have similar concerns. Therefore, the issue requires more discussion.
The problem that I have with the Liberal Democrats' approach is that they are taking away the democratic right of Londoners to have a say on the issue. A similar position has been taken by the Conservatives. The mayor should have powers to introduce the measure. The mayor should be able to go to Londoners to have the debate. At the moment, I err on the side of caution because I do not think that London is ready for road charging, but that option should be available to the mayor.
Another problem that we face—it is something that I have spoken about several times in the House already—is that south-east London does not have the tube network.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Some of us do.

Mr. Efford: North Greenwich will have the tube soon. My constituency does not have it. The A2 and A20 meet in my constituency near two motorways. The problem with road charging is that it does not offer at the outset an alternative for people to switch to.
Connex South Eastern says that, during peak hours, it is running at capacity. It does not have any excess places for people to use at peak times. The London bus network is not seen as a satisfactory alternative. People could turn to the London taxi, but that would only add to road congestion.
Are the Conservatives aware that the average speed in London before the introduction of motor vehicles was 11 mph and that their transport strategies managed to get the figure back down to 11 mph by the time that they left office? Their transport strategies do not, therefore, give them much to crow about.
The serious point is that there are no transport alternatives. We need substantial investment in public transport to improve and expand it, and to allow people a choice. They could then switch from their car to safe, affordable, comfortable and reliable public transport. At present, we are not offering people those alternatives, particularly in my part of south-east London. Public transport should be extended before we go down the road—if I may use that word—of introducing road user charging, but Londoners should have an opportunity to tackle that issue in future.

Ms Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) is entirely right. The Bill contains enabling powers, and he put his finger on the point when he said that such powers should be available to the mayor, should he or she wish to use them.
Londoners have said time and again that traffic congestion in the capital needs to be tackled. Clauses 222 and 223 will enable London's mayor and boroughs to introduce road user charging schemes and levy a charge on workplace parking. We amended the Bill in Committee to give the mayor and boroughs those new powers, underlining our proposals for a strong, effective mayor with powers to tackle congestion.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) was at some pains, as he said, to set the record straight on the Conservative party's policy on that issue. However, he seems to have executed a U-turn this evening because I distinctly remember that, in Committee, he said that the Conservative party was not opposed in principle to introducing road user charging nationally; it was only London's mayor to whom it wanted to deny those enabling powers.
I regret that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is not in his place, not least because he is clearly as uninformed about his own party's policies as he is about the Government's proposals. He is opposed to any charging scheme unless there is clear hypothecation. His experience of the Treasury led him to believe that hypothecation would never be introduced, but we, as a radical Government, have demonstrated that it can, and will, be introduced.
The issue of hypothecation ran through all the contributions to the debate. Hon. Members expressed concerns about whether 100 per cent. of net proceeds would be available to the mayor and boroughs for the mayor's transport strategy, how long hypothecation would operate and whether hypothecated income would be additional. I shall lay to rest all the fears on those three issues. Certainly, 100 per cent. of net proceeds will be spent exclusively on the mayor and borough transport strategies.
Hypothecation may continue for longer than 10 years for specific schemes. However, I say to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who spoke to the Liberal Democrat amendments, that we reject permanent hypothecation, as we did in Committee when the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—or perhaps it was the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—proposed it. As I said to Liberal Democrat Members then, it is absurd to think that one would achieve the best public transport system or the best value for the taxpayer if a scheme of permanent hypothecation were introduced, because we do not seek gold-plating or platinum-plating of public transport legislation. Surely it must be possible to evaluate schemes to find out whether they are delivering best value for the taxpayer.

Mr. Brake: Would it not be possible, under a permanent scheme, for the mayor to decide to reduce the congestion charges or abolish them entirely?

Ms Jackson: As I have already pointed out, the 10-year period is not an absolute cut-off; when schemes are reviewed, it will be possible to extend them. Clearly, there will be schemes that will take much longer than 10 years to complete, but to include in the Bill the requirements in the Liberal Democrat amendments would be nonproductive. They would not produce best value for the taxpayer or, in the long run, the best and most effective improvements from transport schemes.
Concerns were expressed about whether such hypothecated income streams would be additional. I was somewhat surprised to hear the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who was in the Committee when I made that point clear, but I shall make it clear again. The Bill requires any such scheme to keep separate income and expenditure accounts. Such accounts must be published annually and it will therefore be abundantly clear that those revenues are indeed additional.

Mr. Edward Davey: Is the Minister saying that the only money available for London transport will come from road user charges?

Ms Jackson: I am bemused by the hon. Gentleman's question, and I would love to know—or perhaps I would not—how he arrived at it. I repeat that any concerns that revenues raised from road user charging would not be additional should be laid to rest by the fact that the Bill requires all such schemes to keep separate income and expenditure accounts, which must be published annually. It will therefore be abundantly clear that those revenues are indeed additional.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned also about whether there would be funding for the mayor and the boroughs. I cannot understand his concern, because the Government have announced an additional £1.8 million for local authority transport.

Mr. Ottaway: Does the Minister accept that I share Liberal Democrat Members' concerns? This is a question not of publishing accounts and saying that the revenue is additional, but of what the Treasury will be doing. Will the Minister assure us that there will be no reduction in the Treasury's grant to match the money raised by the schemes?

Ms Jackson: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously asking me to predict Budgets five or 10 years in advance? Did his party ever do so? Did his party ever guarantee any kind of funding for local authority transport? The Conservatives guaranteed year-on-year reductions. I say to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that their fears that the hypothecated revenues might be a way for the Government to avoid their responsibilities, now or in future, by eroding central funding for local authority transport schemes are unfounded. I say for the third and final time that the Bill requires such schemes to keep separate income and expenditure accounts, which must be published annually.
I have already said that the Government's commitment to improving and integrating public transport is on the record, not only in our policy pronouncements, but in the additional £1.8 million that we have provided for local authority transport.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South accused the Government of being anti-car. That is far from the case, but we are anti-pollution. I am sure that he is aware that drivers suffer three times more pollution from petrol-driven cars than those who walk on the pavement. Any improvement that can be made in congestion will therefore not only improve journey times, but begin to reduce the amount of pollution in our air, thereby improving the environment and the quality of life in London. That point was made in the thoughtful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
The hon. Member for Croydon, South is clearly anti-pedestrian, and does not like the idea of zebra crossings being introduced. He is also very doubtful about traffic calming measures—which are road safety measures that have reduced accident rates, particularly for children, pedestrians and cyclists. Traffic calming measures have, indeed, reduced the accident rate for children by 67 per cent.
In this debate, the hon. Member for Croydon, South acknowledged that public transport in London is good; although, in our previous debate—in the criticism that he was levelling at London Transport—he could have fooled me that that was his belief. Nevertheless, he ignores the fact that public transport is good only because of a basket of schemes enhancing public transport's priority on the road.

Mr. Ottaway: I cannot let the Minister get away with saying that I am anti-pedestrian. The point—which I went to great lengths to make—is that there has to be a balance between the needs of pedestrians and of motorists. I also


questioned whether the Government had struck the balance right. That certainly does not mean that I am anti-pedestrian.

Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman certainly implied that he was anti-pedestrian. He was much exercised by the introduction of pedestrian crossings in a road in his constituency. Moreover, his main concern about the crossings was not safety or the fact that they did not improve access to either side of the road for pedestrians, but that cars had to wait in queues for pedestrians to cross.
Roads are surely not the exclusive preserve of the users of one form of transport, and they certainly are not paid for by users of one form of transport. Surely pedestrians and cyclists, and certainly public transport, have a right to their fair share of our roads and of road use. Ever since the Government entered office, we have been prioritising the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South also expressed concern about the possibility of congestion charging leading to—I paraphrase—a "beggar my neighbour" policy. He gave the example of Bluewater, which he said is having an effect on a town centre in his constituency. Bluewater—which was given planning permission by the previous Administration—underlines the absolute necessity of co-ordinating planning and transport decisions. We have introduced a requirement for those decisions to be co-ordinated. We simply cannot create good transport infrastructures without considering land use and land use planning issues.
In his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) expressed his concern about those issues. Precisely to address those issues, the Government have made it abundantly clear that there must be co-ordination in any such schemes, and that such schemes must work within an over-arching mayoral strategy. There would be no virtue or value if the introduction of such schemes turned city centres into ghost towns. We are concerned with the revitalisation of our urban centres, and one of the ways of achieving that objective is to make our urban centres pleasant places in which to work, shop, walk and live. We therefore have to reduce not only traffic congestion on our streets, but the noise and environmental pollution that go with that congestion.
I should say again—just so that there is absolutely no doubt about the issue—that the modelling for the public-private partnership for London Underground is not dependent on revenue from road user charges or the workplace parking levy.
As I said, I regret that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has left the Chamber. I was somewhat bemused by his expression of concern for the poor, the disabled and the elderly. When the Conservative party was in government, those sections of our society seemed to have totally disappeared from Conservative party thinking. He also complained about increased fuel duty as it affected his constituency, again neglecting to point out that that policy was introduced by the previous Government.
The hon. Member also expressed some concern about protecting London. Again, however, a previous Conservative Administration abolished the GLC, thereby denying a democratic voice to the people of London. I shall not go into the details of the inordinate damage that Conservative Administrations have inflicted on Londoners—by taking away housing, jobs and many social services.
The provisions in schedules 18 and 19 will ensure that the schemes that I have been describing may be introduced quickly and operate effectively and equitably. However, I repeat that they are enabling powers, and that it will be for the mayor and the boroughs to decide whether to make use of the charging powers provided by the Bill.
I have already touched on the issue of what I perceive to be the official Opposition's U-turn on the issue, by seeking to deprive the mayor and the boroughs of the option of introducing a road charging scheme. However, as I said, I appreciate from the remarks in Committee of the hon. Member for Croydon, South that he perceives Conservative party policy as in principle favouring introducing such charges—but only nationally and not in London. He did not afford any evidence that, should they be introduced, our hypothecation of any such revenue raised would become part of Conservative policy.
Evidence shows that road user charging and a levy on workplace parking are able to help to tackle the problems of congestion and pollution. Clearly, less congestion means faster, more reliable journey times, and that will benefit businesses, motorists and the capital's bus users. It will make the streets more pleasant for pedestrians and residents, and make our city more attractive to tourists.
New charges will also generate a revenue stream. As I have already made clear, all such schemes introduced by the mayor or boroughs within the GLA's first 10 years will retain every penny of the proceeds for transport expenditure. We shall review the arrangements 10 years after establishment of the GLA.
As I said, we do not share the view of the Liberal Democrats that hypothecation of charging revenues should continue indefinitely, as they might not provide value for money in the long term.
I have also touched on the issue of requiring separate accounts to be maintained and published for each charging scheme, guaranteeing transparency and demonstrating to Londoners that the revenues generated by new charges are additional moneys for transport expenditure.
The Government have made it clear that schemes may be introduced if they directly or indirectly help to deliver the objectives in the mayor's transport strategy. The requirements for the Secretary of State to make regulations covering various aspects of the schemes' operation have been reduced.
We have also given the mayor the opportunity of specifying which aspects of the charging schemes, if any, he or she would wish formally to approve as schemes are developed. That will help to ensure consistency across schemes when the mayor considers that to be necessary, and allow charging authorities the freedom to take decisions on other issues.
I have given only a brief overview of the key changes made to the Bill in Committee. As I said, the Government believe that the Bill's enabling powers are greatly important and must be available to the mayor and the assembly, to ensure that improvements not only in London's public transport but in London's environment may be made.
The Bill's provisions will provide the mayor and boroughs with powers to make a real difference in tackling London's serious traffic problems. Clauses 222 and 223 will, as I said, empower the mayor and borough


to introduce road user and workplace parking charging schemes. The provisions of schedules 18 and 19 will ensure that schemes may be introduced quickly and operate effectively and equitably.
A world-class city requires a world-class transport system. It is therefore only right that London's mayor and boroughs should have the powers that they need to help them to deliver that goal for Londoners.
8.30 pm
It was heartening to hear the support expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, East, for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Eltham. They each adopted a reasoned and thoughtful approach—cautious in some instances. Like the Government, they understand that the introduction of congestion charging or levies will need the consent of the people of London. It would not be possible for the debate to begin if the mayor and the boroughs were denied the powers that we have ensured will be enshrined in the Bill—powers that we believe will give Londoners the benefits and improvements in quality of life in this great city that we are committed to ensuring.

Mr. Flight: Like many Conservatives, I have been attracted by the concept of road pricing and the market principles that lie behind it, but the Government are profoundly mistaken if they sincerely believe that it will achieve the two objectives that they claim. Like the taxation of petrol, if it is to have any effect on usage, the charge will have to be very substantial. That would bear hardest on those in the middle of society and those for whom marginal expenditure is meaningful—often those bringing up children and paying mortgages.
My views against the principle were particularly shaped when I read a fascinating account of the early days of the London county council at the beginning of this century. It was a huge relief to Londoners when the LCC came in and swept away the various transport charges such as bridge tolls that were causing delays and congestion. I wonder about the practicalities of how the charges will work. Are they not likely to cause congestion? What is the position of someone who lives on the borders of London? What will the arrangements be for checking and presumably fining people if they have not paid their tax?
I have lived in London for 25 years. The hassle that Londoners have to go through to get a resident's parking permit is irritating, involving taking a form to their employer and getting him to sign and stamp it to confirm that they work for that firm. I suppose that we are now going to have another round of such bureaucratic hassle. I confess that I have driven to and from my workplace since I have lived in London, largely because I have worked late hours. The congestion seems to me to be less than it was 20 years ago. The main cause of that improvement is the building of the M25, which has taken a massive pressure of through traffic off London. It is naive to think that waving our fingers to promote public transport and a congestion charge will be a realistic answer to the problem.
The objective is clearly to raise money. The idea has nothing to do with reducing traffic in London. It would be politically impossible to think of anyone levying a charge high enough to discourage car usage. We are

talking about yet another stealth tax. If the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) believes that the measure will be popular with Londoners, he is greatly mistaken. If he fancies his chances of being mayor of London, he will have to change his tune.

Mr. Paul Burstow: The debate has been illuminating, giving us further confirmation of the Conservatives' emerging transport policy. We have learned that their candidate is to enter the mayoral elections with his hands tied in debates about road charges and the workplace levy. That makes it difficult for the Conservatives, to set out transport policies for the benefit of Londoners. It may explain why Steven Norris is at least beginning to consider the possibility of standing not as a Conservative but under an independent banner. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) has rightly said, during his time as a Minister and after leaving ministerial office, Mr. Norris was only too willing to acknowledge the fact that workplace charges were essential to deal with some of the fundamental problems of traffic and transportation in Greater London.
We have learned from the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), as he gropes his way towards a new transport policy for the Conservatives, that their ideas involve ripping out pedestrian crossings, removing traffic calming measures and getting cars to go faster on almost every road. It will be interesting to debate those policies during the election campaign next year.

Mr. Ottaway: Our policy is not to rip out pedestrian crossings.

Mr. Burstow: I am delighted to issue the press release confirming that tonight we have managed to persuade the Conservative party to turn away from the crazy policy of which we heard earlier in the debate.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South is right to say that road pricing and workplace charges are not a panacea. They are not the be all and end all of a debate on transport policy. He was right to draw attention to the need to recognise that there should be more investment in clean vehicle technology. I should like to draw the attention of the House to work that is being done in London, led by my local authority in Sutton, in pioneering the Zeus project on the development of low and nil-emission technology, in partnership with Southwark, Merton and other local authorities throughout the country. They are liaising with European partners to work alongside the manufacturing industries that provide our motor vehicles to ensure that they bring forward plans from their drawing boards and put them in the marketplace. That is happening. We are grateful for the support that we have had from the Government, but we wish that they could give a little more leadership by investing the public money for which they are responsible in such vehicles and so setting an example.
The Conservatives have tied the hands of their candidate, but Labour is effectively doing the same thing because of the way in which the Government are setting up the two potential sources of revenue.
It is clear that the Government have not addressed hypothecation, or the permanence of the scheme. I listened closely to the Minister, and I shall address some


of her comments. Reference has been made to the report of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, and the three key issues identified in the report—hypothecation, permanence and additionality.
The Minister claims that there is 100 per cent. certainty that 100 per cent. of the net proceeds of the initial schemes will go into transport schemes in London. However, we are then told that hypothecation may continue into the future for specific schemes. The Minister has again rejected the idea that we should have the permanent hypothecation of resources, arguing that that would be gold-plating London Transport. Anyone outside this House who heard the argument that if a scheme went on for over 10 years, with the hypothecation of the revenue streams from the two sources of charging, we would be in danger of gold-plating the transport system would wonder where the Minister has been.

Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not what I said. I referred to the extension of the initial 10-year period, for example, for schemes such as a private finance initiative which would clearly run on for longer than 10 years. Such examples are included in the Bill, and will be entirely feasible. He is misinterpreting the review which will take place after the first 10 years of a running scheme. That does not mean automatically that hypothecation will end.
I have pointed out one scenario where hypothecation would, of necessity, have to continue, and I can think of many others. 1 did not say—I am clear that the hon. Gentleman does not think for one moment that I did—that, after 10 years, any form of transport in London would be gold-plated. The Liberal Democrats' argument for permanent hypothecation will not deliver the best possible value with the funds raised, and will not deliver the best possible public transport.

Mr. Burstow: I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged that, after 10 years, our transport system will not be gold-plated by this Government. Undoubtedly, the Government are not putting in adequate resources to deliver that. Having said that, the key point is that if we are to persuade Londoners that the permissive powers to be granted to the mayor are to be invoked and used for the good of Londoners, we need to be able to say that the money that Londoners will pay will go back to the benefit of Londoners and London Transport. The Government are not prepared to accept that.

Ms Jackson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apologise to the House for misleading it in that way. The Government have made it abundantly clear that 100 per cent. of the net proceeds raised will be spent only on the improvement of transport in London.

Mr. Burstow: For 10 years—that is the key point, to which the Minister did not refer.

Ms Jackson: I did not refer to that because I had just, in some detail, evinced to him the realities of what he sees as the 10-year bar less than a minute ago. As he is clearly having difficulty in retaining the information, I will give it again. There will be a review after the first 10 years. That review does not automatically mean the closure of hypothecation. I have given one instance where there

would be a clear need for an extension way beyond the initial 10-year scheme. That is my point. We do not accept the Liberal Democrats' argument for permanent hypothecation for the reasons that I have, on more than one occasion, given to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Burstow: The problem is that the Minister acknowledged earlier that she could not give commitments as to the level of public expenditure to be committed to London Transport over the next 10 years, or any other period. That is why we believe fundamentally that the Government's weasel words on additionality have nothing to do with additionality. The separate accounts to which the Minister referred do not give Londoners any form of guarantee that the revenue streams that the charges will produce will give additional funds for the benefit of London Transport.

Ms Jackson: Given the company he keeps, the hon. Gentleman clearly knows a great deal more about weasel words than I will ever know. The Bill states that the revenues will be additional by virtue of the requirement for separate revenue accounts and income and expenditure accounts, which must be published annually. My point was that I could not guarantee any budget; nor, in the unlikely event of the hon. Gentleman ever being in a Government position, could he. I can assure him of the Government's commitment to local public transport, by virtue of the additional £1.8 million that we have invested.

Mr. Burstow: The Minister is charm itself, and she makes my point for me yet again. She makes it clear that she cannot give a commitment tonight that is essential, in terms of a debate about charges in the elections next year, to give Londoners confidence that they are voting for something that will benefit them and not the Treasury, which undoubtedly has the Minister in an arm-lock and is denying her the ability to give the guarantee this evening.

Ms Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is entirely up to the hon. Gentleman whether he gives way.

Mr. Burstow: I happily give way to the Minister again.

Ms Jackson: I am grateful. I repeat: we have made it clear that the Government have broken the wall of hypothecation, which was an absolute no-no as far as previous Treasuries were concerned. That is another indication of our unified, linked-up government, inasmuch as we have achieved a clear commitment that 100 per cent. of the net proceeds of the revenues raised will be spent exclusively and totally on transport. Those proceeds will not be diverted into the Treasury—not only in London but in the rest of the United Kingdom-when, as we hope, the schemes are introduced post-legislation.

Mr. Burstow: The Minister may be right in saying that hypothecation has had one of the arms that was held behind its back released, but the Treasury still firmly grips the other when it comes to budgetary matters. The hon. Lady has not persuaded me or my colleagues that she has been able to convince the Treasury on that point.
The Government will produce a sterile debate about road charging in London because they are not setting up a scheme that will give confidence to Londoners. That is one of our major criticisms of the policy, but we believe that the provisions are needed and we support the permissive powers that they grant. We want the debate to take place because we believe that, ultimately, with the caveats that we have set out, we need the charges to generate the revenues that the mayor will need to deliver real improvements for London in the long term.

Mr. Simon Hughes: New clause 6 suggests a third revenue stream, which it calls a "traffic disruption charge". Some wonderful true stories have appeared in the London press over the past year. On 22 February, the Evening Standard carried a story,
Same road dug up each week for a year".
One of my local authority chiefs complained that Southwark Bridge road in my constituency had been visited 30 times by BT alone, with workmen arriving 75 times, in the past 12 months. That was not as bad as a street in Camden that had been disrupted by the utilities 85 times in the previous year.
Without much notice, the Royal Parks decided to close the Mall, effectively blocking all central London's traffic for a few weeks at the turn of the year. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) introduced a private Member's Bill on the subject earlier in the year, perhaps because of his earlier incarnation as the unsuccessful candidate for Peckham, where I believe he got about 5 per cent. of the vote. The experience may have left a searing impression on him about traffic in London. I welcome his Bill. Lord Archer has also seen that there may be cause for complaint.
If we are seriously looking for revenue streams to help to fund public transport in a way that is ring-fenced, as my hon. Friends have so painstakingly argued, in addition to giving the mayor and the authority the option of workplace and road user charging—which we support—we should consider so arranging matters that, when an agreed contract for digging up the road has been breached, somebody should pay something into the London kitty for the disruption caused.
The Government may not have seriously considered that.

Ms Glenda Jackson: We have.

Mr. Hughes: As far as I know, the Minister has not yet put it on the record whether the Government are for or against the idea. I am not pressing her for an answer now, but I hope that, when the Bill goes to the other place, the Government will seriously consider introducing that third revenue stream. If we are looking for money for London, that seems an obvious source, and it will be extremely popular with Londoners.

Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is making a refreshingly different speech. Perhaps it should be known as the Heineken traffic disruption charge speech?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend nearly got his joke in.
I hope that my proposal will be taken seriously. It would probably be more popular than the others. I hope that, in due course, not only will London government have the ability to raise revenue as it chooses, but the Government will not interfere in such revenue once it has been raised.

Mr. Ottaway: It is not often that I find common cause with the Minister, but I sensed her frustration when the Liberals were misinterpreting the Government's policy, just as they do my party's policy, which frustrates me.
As this debate has gone on, I have detected a certain frisson in the Chamber. It is beginning to dawn on Members that the Conservatives are right on this matter, and that the other parties are wrong. It is beginning to dawn on people that the Government's policy will not work. It will hit people hard, as my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) have pointed out. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not London Members."] It is a perfectly valid point, no matter where the hon. Members come from.
I also note a willingness among all Members who are not Conservatives to try to put an interpretation on Conservative party policy, so I shall clarify it. The Minister has chosen to misinterpret our policies possibly because I left a slither of a vacuum in them, which I shall now promptly fill. I should make it absolutely clear that we are opposed to congestion taxation in London. I stand by what we said in Committee: we still have an open mind on congestion taxation in the rest of the United Kingdom. That was and remains our position.
The Minister said that she was unable to give an undertaking on the question of additionality because she could not possibly decide the budget for years to come. That is exactly the point that we have been making. It is impossible to give an undertaking on additionality, which is why it will be impossible for the Government to persuade anybody that such additionality will occur.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: No, not at the moment.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said that the Government must make their case before they are able to support congestion charging. I do not think that they have made that case. We therefore hope that the Liberal Democrats will join us in the Lobby.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) spoke about out-of-town centres such as Bluewater, as, indeed, did the Minister. The hon. Gentleman said that he was against out-of-town centres where there was free parking. From that, I presume that he is advocating that such centres should have paid parking. The Minister chose to misinterpret my point about Croydon on that issue. Road pricing is being proposed in Croydon. Why should any shopper choose to pay to go to Croydon when they can go to Bluewater out-of-town retail development and park for nothing? That is the impact that the proposals will have on local economies in London. The Minister has made the case neither for additionality nor for hypothecation. Nor has she addressed the 10-year cut off for hypothecation.


The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) supported congestion charging; it was the first time that I have heard him do so. I suppose that the waiting electorate will digest that development. He said that he thought that people would welcome a little extra for the funding of transport in London, but unless the Minister can assure him on additionality, there will not be any little extra. That is the difficulty.

Mr. Livingstone: I trust my colleagues.

Mr. Ottaway: That sounds like a man who is still desperate to be selected as a candidate.
The Minister has failed to persuade us that the proposal will do anything to solve the problems of congestion in London. In fact, it is a stealth tax—a tax by the back door. The issues of pollution can be tackled without the introduction of a congestion charge. Under the circumstances, we shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 265.

Division No. 166]
[8.55 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Hammond, Philip


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Heald, Oliver


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Horam, John


Baldry, Tony
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beggs, Roy
Hunter, Andrew


Bercow, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lansley, Andrew


Brady, Graham
Leigh, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Lidington, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Burns, Simon
Loughton, Tim


Butterfill, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
McIntosh, Miss Anne


(Chipping Barnet)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
McLoughlin, Patrick


(Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humfrey


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
May, Mrs Theresa


Collins, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Cran, James
Page, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paterson, Ownen


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Randall, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice
Redwood, Rt Hon John


& Howden)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Day, Stephen
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Duncan, Alan
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Duncan Smith, Iain
St Aubyn, Nick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Evans, Nigel
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fabricant, Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fallon, Michael
Stantley, Rt Hon sir John


Flight, Howard
Swayne, Desmond


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Syms, Robert


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Fraser, Christopher
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Garnier, Edward
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gibb, Nick
Trend, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Viggers, Peter


Gray, James
Walter, Robert


Green, Damian
Waterson, Nigel


Grieve, Dominic
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Whittingdale, John





Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Woodward, Shaun
Sir David Madel.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dawson, Hilton


Allen, Graham
Dean, Mrs Janet


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Denham, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dismore, Andrew


Ashton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H


Atkins, Charlotte
Dowd, Jim


Austin, John
Drew, David


Barnes, Harry
Drown, Ms Julia


Barron, Kevin
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Beard, Nigel
Edwards, Huw


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Efford, Clive


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ennis, Jeff


Bennett, Andrew F
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Berry, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Best, Harold
Flint, Caroline


Betts, Clive
Flynn, paul


Blackman, Liz
Follett, Barbara


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Don (Bath)


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gapes, Mike


Brake, Tom
Gardiner, Barry


Breed, Colin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gerrard, Neil


Buck, Ms Karen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Burstow, Paul
Goggins, paul


Butler, Mrs Christine
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, Jamie
Grocott, Bruce


Caplin, Ivor
Grogan, John


Casale, Roger
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chaytor, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr Lynda
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Healey, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clwyd, Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Colman, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Hope, Phil


Crausby, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hurst, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Hutton, John


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darvill, Keith
Illsley, Eric


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jamieson, David


Davidson, Ian
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)






Johnson, Miss Melanie
Prosser, Gwyn


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Ms Jenny
Rapson, Syd


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Robertson, Rt Hon George


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
(Hamilton S)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rowlands, Ted


Kemp, Fraser
Roy, Frank


Khabra, Piara S
Ruddock, Joan


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Sanders, Adrian


Laxton, Bob
Savidge, Malcolm


Levitt, Tom
Sawford, Phil


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sheerman, Barry


Linton, Martin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Singh, Marsha


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Skinner, Dennis


Lock, David
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine


McAvoy, Thomas
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Snape, Peter


(Makerfield)
Soley, Clive


McDonagh, Siobhain
Southworth, Ms Helen


McDonnell, John
Spellar, John


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mackinlay, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McNulty, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


MacShane, Denis
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mactaggart, Fiona
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


McWalter, Tony
Stringer, Graham


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mallaber, Judy
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
(Dewsbury)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Timms, Stephen


Meale, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Merron, Gillian
Todd, Mark


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Miller, Andrew
Trickett, Jon


Mitchell, Austin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Moffatt, Laura
TWigg, Derek (Halton)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Morley, Elliot
Vis, Dr Rudi


Mountford, Kali
Ward, Ms Claire


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Watts, David


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
White, Brian


Olner, Bill
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Palmer, Dr Nick
Wicks, Malcolm


Pearson, Ian
Wills, Michael


Perham, Ms Linda
Winnick, David


Pickthall, Colin
Wise Audrey


Pike, Peter L
Wood, Mike


Plaskitt, James
Wray, James


Pollard, Kerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Pond, Chris
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen
Tellers for the Noes:


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Jane Kennedy and


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr.Keith Hill.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Schedule 18

ROAD USER CHARGING

Amendments made: No. 140, in page 233, line 31, at end insert—
'(1A) Any charge imposed by a charging scheme in respect of the keeping of a motor vehicle on a road in a charging area must also have effect in respect of the use of the motor vehicle in that charging area.'.

No. 141, in page 235, line 5, leave out 'four' and insert 'ten'.

No. 142, in page 238, line 23, at end insert—

'4 year programmes: amendment, replacement and voluntary
statements
23A.—(1) Where a statement has been prepared and approved under paragraph 20 or 22 above, the authority which prepared the statement may—

(a) amend the statement, or
(b) replace it with another statement (a "replacement statement"),
but subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, where a charging scheme is in force—

(a) the charging authority may prepare a statement such as is described in paragraph 20(1) above, and
(b) if the charging scheme is one to which paragraph 21 above applies, the Authority may prepare a statement such as is described in paragraph 22(2) above,

at any time before the beginning of the first financial year for which a statement under paragraph 20 or, as the case may be, paragraph 22 above is required to be prepared in respect of the scheme.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) a "voluntary statement" is a statement prepared under sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b) above,
(b) a statement prepared under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above shall be treated as a statement prepared under paragraph 20 above and, if approved in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, as approved under that paragraph, and
(c) a statement prepared under sub-paragraph (2)(b) above shall be treated as a statement prepared under paragraph 22 above and, if approved in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, as approved under that paragraph,

and references to statements under paragraph 20 or 22 above shall be construed accordingly.
(4) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2) above is exercisable—

(a) in the case of a statement under paragraph 20 above in respect of a borough scheme, during the period of six months beginning with the day on which a change of control of the London borough council concerned occurs; or
(b) in any other case, during the period of six months beginning with the term of office of any person returned as the Mayor at an ordinary election or at an election under section 16 of this Act.

(5) Where, in exercise of the powers conferred by this paragraph, an authority proposes—

(a) to amend or replace a statement prepared and approved under paragraph 20 or 22 above, or
(b) to prepare a voluntary statement,

sub-paragraph (6) below applies.

(6) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the amendment, replacement statement or voluntary statement must be submitted for approval—

(a) to the Secretary of State; and
(b) if the statement concerned or affected is one prepared in respect of a borough scheme by the charging authority, to the Authority.

(7) Where sub-paragraph (6)(b) above applies, any submission to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (6)(a) above may only be made—

(a) by the Authority acting on behalf of the charging authority concerned; and
(b) after the giving by the Authority of the approval required by sub-paragraph (6)(b) above.

(8) Where a statement prepared and approved under paragraph 20 or 22 above is amended in accordance with this paragraph, the statement shall continue to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as a statement so prepared and approved, notwithstanding the amendment.
(9) A replacement statement or a voluntary statement must relate to the four financial years beginning with the financial year in which it takes effect (disregarding so much of that year as has expired before the statement takes effect).
(10) A replacement statement or voluntary statement prepared and approved under this paragraph shall be taken for the purposes of this Schedule to be a statement prepared and approved—

(a) under paragraph 20 above, if it was prepared in respect of a charging scheme by the charging authority; or
(b) under paragraph 22 above, if it was prepared by the Authority.

(11) Where a voluntary statement or replacement statement prepared by an authority takes effect, the time at which any subsequent statement is required to be prepared by that authority by virtue of paragraph 20 or 22 above in respect of the charging scheme in question shall be determined as if the financial year preceding that in which the replacement statement or voluntary statement takes effect had been such a fourth year as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]

Schedule 19

WORKPLACE PARKING LEVY

Amendments made: No. 143, in page 246, line 48, leave out 'four' and insert 'ten'.

No. 144, in page 250, line 17, at end insert—

'4 year programmes: amendment, replacement and voluntary statements
29A. —(1) Where a statement has been prepared and approved under paragraph 26 or 28 above, the authority which prepared the statement may

(a) amend the statement, or
(b) replace it with another statement (a "replacement statement"),

but subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, where a licensing scheme is in force—

(a) the licensing authority may prepare a statement such as is described in paragraph 26(1) above, and
(b) if the licensing scheme is one to which paragraph 27 above applies, the Authority may prepare a statement such as is described in paragraph 28(2) above,

at any time before the beginning of the first financial year for which a statement under paragraph 26 or, as the case may be, paragraph 28 above is required to be prepared in respect of the scheme.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) a "voluntary statement" is a statement prepared under sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b) above,

(b) a statement prepared under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above shall be treated as a statement prepared under paragraph 26 above and, if approved in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, as approved under that paragraph, and
(c) a statement prepared under sub-paragraph (2)(b) above shall be treated as a statement prepared under paragraph 28 above and, if approved in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, as approved under that paragraph,

and references to statements under paragraph 26 or 28 above shall be construed accordingly.
 (4) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2) above is exercisable—

(a) in the case of a statement under paragraph 26 above in respect of a borough scheme, during the period of six months beginning with the day on which a change of control of the London borough council concerned occurs; or
(b) in any other case, during the period of six months beginning with the term of office of any person returned as the Mayor at an ordinary election or at an election under section 16 of this Act.

(5) Where, in exercise of the powers conferred by this paragraph, an authority proposes—

(a) to amend or replace a statement prepared and approved under paragraph 26 or 28 above, or
(b) to prepare a voluntary statement,

sub-paragraph (6) below applies.
(6) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the amendment, replacement statement or voluntary statement must be submitted for approval—

(a) to the Secretary of State; and
(b) if the statement concerned or affected is one prepared in respect of a borough scheme by the licensing authority, to the Authority.

(7) Where sub-paragraph (6)(b) above applies, any submission to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (6)(a) above may only be made—

(a) by the Authority acting on behalf of the licensing authority concerned; and
(b) after the giving by the Authority of the approval required by sub-paragraph (6)(b) above.

(8) Where a statement prepared and approved under paragraph 26 or 28 above is amended in accordance with this paragraph, the statement shall continue to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as a statement so prepared and approved, notwithstanding the amendment.
(9) A replacement statement or a voluntary statement must relate to the four financial years beginning with the financial year in which it takes effect (disregarding so much of that year as has expired before the statement takes effect).
(10) A replacement statement or voluntary statement prepared and approved under this paragraph shall be taken for the purposes of this Schedule to be a statement prepared and approved—

(a) under paragraph 26 above, if it was prepared in respect of a licensing scheme by the licensing authority; or
(b) under paragraph 28 above, if it was prepared by the Authority.

(11) Where a voluntary statement or replacement statement prepared by an authority takes effect, the time at which any subsequent statement is required to be prepared by that authority by virtue of paragraph 26 or 28 above in respect of the licensing scheme in question shall be determined as if the financial year preceding that in which the replacement statement or voluntary statement takes effect had been such a fourth year as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (I) of that paragraph.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 301

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 126, in page 157, line 21, leave out '27 & and insert

'(Limits of the general power)'.

No. 138, in page 157, line 21, leave out from 'above' to end of line 22.

No. 145, in page 157, line 27, after 'paragraph' insert `4 or'.

No. 100, in page 158, line 5, leave out 'or (2)'.

No. 101, in page 158, line 5, at end insert 'or (5)'.

No. 109, in page 158, leave out line 11.

No. 110, in page 158, line 11, at end insert—
`section (Transitional and consequential provision);'.

No. 111, in page 158, line 11, at end insert—
`section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities);'.

No. 112, in page 158, line 11, at end insert—

`section (Pensions);'.

No. 113, in page 158, line 11, at end insert—

'section (Transfer and pension instruments: common provisions);'. — [Mr. Dowd.]

Schedule 26

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendment made: No. 150, in page 302, line 45, column 3, at beginning insert
`In section 1(3), the words "but excluding any part of it within the metropolitan police district".'. —[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 305

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 127, in page 159, line 9, at end insert—
'"national policies" means any policies of Her Majesty's government which are available in a written form and which—

(a) have been laid or announced before, or otherwise presented to, either House of Parliament; or
(b) have been published by a Minister of the Crown;'.

No. 128, in page 159, line 15, at end insert—
' "principal purposes", in relation to the Authority, shall be construed in accordance with section (The general power of the Authority)(2) above;'.

No. 114, in page 159, line 34, at end insert—
'(4) Any power conferred by this Act to affect enactments by subordinate legislation is exercisable notwithstanding that those enactments consist of or include—

(a) provisions contained in Part III above;
(b) provisions relating to the subject matter of that Part; or
(c) provisions creating or otherwise relating to offences.

(5) In subsection (4) above "affect", in relation to any enactment, includes make—

(a) incidental, consequential, transitional, supplemental or supplementary provision or savings; or
(b) amendments, modifications or adaptations.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]

New Clause 16

TRANSFERS OF LRT's PROPERTY ETC TO TRANSPORT FOR LONDON

'.— (1) The Secretary of State shall from time to time prepare programmes for the transfer to Transport for London of property, rights and liabilities of London Regional Transport—

(a) for the purpose of enabling Transport for London to perform its functions as they become exercisable; or
(b) in preparation for the dissolution of London Regional Transport;

and in this Chapter "transfer programme" means a programme under this subsection.
(2) Any powers conferred by Part XII below are exercisable for the purpose of implementing any transfer programme.
(3) A transfer programme may include plans relating to—

(a) the transfer of rights and liabilities under contracts of employment;
(b) the provision of pensions, within the meaning of section (Pensions) below;
(c) the apportionment of any property, rights or liabilities;
(d) the creation of rights or liabilities;
(e) the transfer of statutory functions;
(f) the exercise of any other powers under Part XII below.

(4) A transfer programme may provide for different property, rights or liabilities to be transferred on different days.
(5) To the extent that a transfer programme has not been implemented, it may be varied or replaced by another such programme.'. —[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17

FUNCTIONS DURING THE TRANSITION FROM LRT TO TFL

`.—(1) In this section "transitional purpose" means the purpose of—

(a) facilitating the securing and carrying into effect of PPP agreements under Chapter VI above;
(b) facilitating the transfer of property, rights or liabilities of London Regional Transport to Transport for London; or
(c) securing that public passenger transport services continue to be provided without disruption.

(2) London Regional Transport shall be under a duty, and shall be taken at any time before the coming into force of this section to have had power, to do all such things as it considers appropriate for any transitional purpose.
(3) In discharging their functions during the transitional period it shall be the duty of—

(a) the Mayor,
(b) London Regional Transport, and
(c) Transport for London,

to consult and co-operate with each other for any transitional purpose.
(4) The following provisions of this section have effect for the purpose of facilitating the discharge of the duty of co-operation imposed on London Regional Transport and Transport for London by subsection (3) above.
(5) London Regional Transport and Transport for London shall each provide to the other such information as may reasonably be required by that other for the purpose of discharging any of its functions during the transitional period.


(6) London Regional Transport and Transport for London shall each have power to enter into arrangements with the other—

(a) for the provision by the one for the other of administrative, technical or professional services or of passenger transport services;
(b) for the one to make available for use by the other, or for shared use by each of them, any land, equipment or other property;
(c) for the one to place any of its officers or other members of staff at the disposal of the other, for the purposes of its functions;
(d) for the discharge by the one of any functions of the other on its behalf.

(7) Arrangements entered into under subsection (6) above may be on such terms as may be agreed between London Regional Transport and Transport for London.
(8) Arrangements by virtue of paragraph (c) of subsection (6) above may only be entered into after consultation with the officers or members of staff concerned.
(9) In this Chapter "the transitional period" means the period which—

(a) begins with the coming into force of this section; and
(b) ends on the day on which London Regional Transport ceases to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

FARES ETC DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD

`.— (1) If provision is made under or by virtue of this Act which has the effect of applying to any extent in relation to London Regional Transport during the transitional period—

(a) the powers conferred on the Mayor by section 134 above, and
(b) the duty imposed on the Mayor by section 135 above,

then the Mayor, in discharging that duty as so applied in relation to London Regional Transport, shall act in a way which he considers will not prejudice the financial or other interests of London Regional Transport, having regard to the financial and other interests of Transport for London.
(2) If provision is made under or by virtue of this Act which has the effect of—

(a) applying to any extent in relation to London Regional Transport during the transitional period any of the provisions contained in sections 187 to 190 above or Schedule 12 to this Act, and
(b) authorising or requiring Transport for London during the transitional period to act on behalf of London Regional Transport for the purposes of any of those provisions as so applied,

then Transport for London, in acting on behalf of London Regional Transport for those purposes, shall do so in a way which (having regard to its own financial and other interests) it considers will not prejudice the financial or other interests of London Regional Transport.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 19

CONTINUITY: REPEALED OR REVOKED FUNCTIONS OF LRT

`.— (1) In this section—
abolished function" means any function of London Regional Transport which was conferred or imposed by a statutory provision which is repealed or revoked by or under this Act;

abolition", in relation to an abolished function, means the coming into force of the repeal or revocation of the provision conferring or imposing the function;
statutory provision" means an enactment contained in—

(a) an Act passed before the date on which London Regional Transport is dissolved or in the Session in which that date falls; or
(b) subordinate legislation made before that date or in that Session.

(2) There may be continued by or in relation to Transport for London anything (including legal proceedings) which relates to an abolished function and is in the process of being done by or in relation to London Regional Transport immediately before the abolition of the function.
(3) Anything which—

(a) was made or done by London Regional Transport for the purposes of or in connection with an abolished function, and
(b) is in effect immediately before the abolition of the function,

shall have effect as if made or done by Transport for London.
(4) Transport for London shall be substituted for London Regional Transport in any instruments, contracts or legal proceedings which relate to an abolished function and which were made or commenced before the abolition of the function.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20

TRANSFER OF FORMER FUNCTIONS OF LONDON TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE

`. Any functions of the London Transport Executive established under section 4 of the Transport (London) Act 1969 which, by virtue of section 67(1) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 are exercisable by London Regional Transport, shall instead be exercisable by Transport for London.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

DISSOLUTION OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT

`. When the Secretary of State is satisfied that provision has been made for the transfer of all property, rights and liabilities of London Regional Transport, he may by order provide for the dissolution of London Regional Transport.'. —[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER XIV

`.In this Chapter—
transfer programme" has the meaning given by section (Transfers of LRT's property etc to Transport for London)(1) above;
the transitional period" has the meaning given by section (Functions during the transition from LRT to TfL)(9) above.'. —[Mr. Dowd.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Order for Third Reading read. —[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. — [Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind the House that Madam Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Ottaway: 1 beg to move,
That this House, whilst accepting the principle of a representative body to speak for London, declines to give a Third Reading to the Greater London Authority Bill because it provides for an Authority elected by proportional representation, which will lead to weak government and disproportionate influence of minority parties; because it introduces road user charging which will not solve the problems of congestion or pollution in London; and because it provides wholly unsatisfactory arrangements for the future of London Underground which will not receive the necessary funding or management under the Government's proposed Public Private Partnership, thus burdening Londoners with substantial levels of debt from the outset.
The Conservatives make no apology for having scrapped the Greater London council—it was a bloated, inefficient and expensive organisation. However, we recognise that there is a case for a voice for London. We believe that the borough system has worked well for the past decade and argue that, working with the mayor of London, the boroughs have it within their grasp to become a more effective organisation. That would be to the benefit of the London boroughs and of London as a whole.
The model enshrined in the Bill, however, does not hold much appeal for us. Our arguments that the assembly should comprise an assembly of borough representatives have been rejected and, as a result, we believe that the potential for conflict with the London boroughs is real, and we fear clashes reminiscent of the bad old days of the GLC. We also believe the method of election of both the mayor and the assembly to be flawed. The assembly is almost guaranteed to be hung, and all the inherent weaknesses of proportional representation will be on display.
It is also arguable—in the light of the Government's confessed concerns about the potential rise of extremist parties in London—whether PR is the right method of election for London.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that he believes that the Greater London Authority is almost bound to be hung. If by that he means that there is bound to be no majority for one party, and if it is the case that Londoners who vote do not by a majority vote for one party, does he not accept that the GLA would be more accurately representing Londoners if it represented them according to the share of the votes that they cast than by the result of a distorted figure that gives a minority a majority?

Mr. Ottaway: Time does not permit a detailed analysis of electoral systems. The hon. Gentleman is going into old territory on proportional representation. The Conservative party thinks that PR gives disproportionate power to minority parties and that that will be to the detriment of the assembly.
Before I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I was questioning whether PR is the right method of election for London given the Government's professed concern about

the potential rise of extremist parties in London. It is safe to say that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a British National party candidate could be elected to the assembly. There is also a lack of checks and balances if the mayor loses the plot. The separation of powers between the executive and the assembly is unique to this country. Without the checks and balances of such democratic systems as exist in the United States, for example, the risk of disaster will always be round the corner.
In the old Greater London council, the leader could be removed. In the House, the Prime Minister can be removed. The leader of any council in the country can be removed. However, in London, even if 5 million people signed a petition calling for the removal of the mayor, with a unanimous resolution of this House and the other place and a flock of psychiatrists in Harley street declaring the mayor to be insane, nothing could be done and he could continue in office if he so wished.
London is to be used as a pilot scheme for extra taxation in the form of road user charging. Given that that is unlikely to have any effect upon congestion; given that most public transport systems in London are already saturated and could not cope if there were an exodus from the car; given that the stated aim of road user charging is to reduce the level of pollution, which it is unlikely to do; and given that ix is a tax by the back door, we believe that London is not the right place to introduce such a scheme, and we oppose it.
Above all, the biggest disaster waiting to happen concerns London underground. The Government are busy negotiating a public-private partnership. They have little idea how it will end up, but they know that they will not have completed negotiations by the time the new authority starts work. The Government have given little indication of the mayor's involvement in the negotiations. They simply intend that when they have finished their negotiations, they will dump the outcome on the people of London, walk away from it and say, "You pay off the debt."
The Government are so panicky that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) may end up as the first mayor of London that they have introduced no fewer than 250 powers to enable the Secretary of State to intervene. The House should be under no illusion but that whoever is elected as the first mayor of London will be very much under the thumb of the Secretary of State. The mayor's room to manoeuvre will be minimal and his chance to introduce his own flair and imagination will be strictly limited. The shape and direction of the authority will be very much at the Government's whim. None of this bears any resemblance to, or has any place in, the Conservative party's vision for London.
Our vision is of a lighter touch, with an assembly of borough leaders working with the mayor, not against him. We have a vision of an underground system maximising the benefits that the private sector can bring, with the motorist being managed, not clobbered. It is a vision of working with the people of London, not against them. It is for these reasons that 1 urge the House to support our reasoned amendment.

Mr. Darvill: I oppose the amendment and support the Third Reading of the Bill.


As a member of the Standing Committee and a comparatively new Member of the House, I found the experience in Committee extremely worth while. It was a good-natured Committee, by and large. More than 100 hours of work on the detail of the Bill certainly added to my knowledge of pan-London issues.
The restoration of strategic Londonwide government, in which I am proud to have played a small part, will be a lasting legacy of the Government. Within two years of the general election and on the basis of my party's firm manifesto commitment, a referendum was held and supported by a large number of Londoners, and a comprehensive Bill produced. That is indeed a tribute to the work of the Government and the House.
The Bill not only has support in the House and Londonwide, through the ballot box and the referendum, but during the course of the Standing Committee I received numerous briefings from business organisations, the Association of London Government and so on, supporting the broad thrust of the Bill. It clearly meets the wide-ranging demands of various groups of Londoners.
Developing strategy for the mayor will be an important part of life in London for the next year or so, as we lead up to the election, and afterwards. It is not a question of working against Londoners, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) claimed. The ethos of the Bill is to work with Londoners, the London boroughs and all the participatory organisations set out in the Bill.
Transport will be the principal focus of the GLA and the mayor. It was good to debate the subject at such length today, as that is the aspect of life in London where most difference can be made. The time that we spent debating transport this evening and in Committee was time well spent. Adding democratic power to the police authority is another important step. The powers of the London development agency to regenerate London and the measures relating to the environment and the emergency services are all significant.
I believe that in Committee we spent too long on some clauses and not enough time on others. With due respect to colleagues on the Liberal Benches, having listened to them on many occasions I thought that our time could have been better spent on the more important clauses, rather than listening to the repetition of the same points on others. It is for hon. Members to present their own arguments, but when we are considering a Bill of more than 300 clauses that deals with such important issues as transport and strategic regeneration, we must use our time effectively. On the whole, however, the Committee did its work well.
I am proud to support the Bill and I wish it good speed.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is not only a long Bill; its size suggests serious reading. At the start of our debate yesterday, it was already the largest and longest in the living memory of the Officers of the House, comprising 306 clauses and 26 schedules. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) kindly added up the additional contents, which have been added over only the past two days. We calculate that the Bill

now comprises 338 clauses and 27 schedules. The only significant problem is that it has not got better; with expansion, it has got worse.

Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: In a moment.
My hon. Friends and I made our position clear on Second Reading. We have long advocated London having its own democratic government, and we therefore supported introducing a Bill that would allow us to consider that proposal, but we raised five principal objections.
We said that there was far too much central Government power over what was meant to be a handing over of regional government power. That was true, and is still absolutely true. We said that there was no power, which there should have been, to vary the amount of money raised by the Greater London Authority. If we want to give real political power, we have to give real economic power. That was true, and is still true.
We said that the mayor would be too powerful relative to the assembly. That was absolutely true, and is still absolutely true.

The Minister for London and Construction>(Mr. Nick Raynsford): No.

Mr. Hughes: It is absolutely true. As the Minister and his colleagues kept on telling us, the Bill's structure means that we will have an executive mayor and an assembly that, if it is lucky, will benefit from a bit of consultation about what the mayor is planning to do.
Like many of the people who responded to the Green Paper, we argued strongly that the principal powers should be extended to include duties relating to the health of Londoners and the co-ordination of the provision of higher, or post-secondary, education. Neither has been included in the Bill. We argued that, although the electoral system would be better than the one we had when London last had regional government, the proposed system was not the best. That is as true now as when we started our consideration of the Bill. I have to report that there has been no improvement at all to any of the proposals that were the subject of those five objections.
We were surprised that the Government resisted so many of the specific ways in which we sought to amend the authority's general powers. We argued that a principal purpose of the new authority should be promoting the health of people in Greater London, but they resisted that. We argued that a principal purpose should be the achievement of sustainable development. They resisted that. Saddest of all, when we argued yesterday that a principal purpose of the authority should be the promotion not only of social development but of equal opportunities, they resisted that, too.
We argued that it might be possible for the deputy mayor to be chosen by the assembly, given that the deputy mayor has to come from the assembly. We thought that the Government might accept that reasonable and modest proposal—but no, the deputy mayor has to be appointed by the mayor because the mayor has to keep all the power to herself or himself.
On Second Reading, we also flagged up the fact that we wanted to introduce parish and community councils in London under the umbrella of the Bill. The rest of Britain


can have them, but sadly, that was not technically possible because of the Bill's long title. We shall have to come back to that issue.
We have clearly moved forward in some respects and progress has been made. We flagged up the fact that the Government were proposing that, although the elections would be in May next year, the authority would come into existence in April. We persuaded them that that was not terribly logical. There will now be elections for the assembly in May and the authority will come into being in July, which is a welcome change.
We welcome the proposals for consulting more widely with London's representative communities, which we argued about in Committee. We welcome wider consultation with people about the appointment of chief officers of police, which we pressed for in Committee. We greatly welcome the great concessions of yesterday, when the Government accepted our amendments: climate change should appear instead of global warming, and waste minimisation should be added to the list of environmental considerations. Those are small amendments for which we are nevertheless grateful.
It was also accepted all round the House that, for the first election, there should be a minimum threshold, for particular London reasons, for those who are to be elected on the top-up list. However, Liberal Democrat Members made it clear that we reserve our position until we have heard the electoral commission's report on the viability and appropriateness of continuing a threshold thereafter.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: Given the vandalism of the Conservative Government, who abolished the GLC, and the fact that this Government are re-establishing London government, may I suggest that Liberal Democrats are nitpicking? They accuse us of centralisation, but we are responding to public demand and restoring London government. In respect of economic power, we are creating a regional development agency and the power of the mayor will be balanced by the assembly. Health is a feature, and we are not returning to a GLC. We are restoring London government, and Londoners will elect a Labour mayor.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has a duty to defend the proposition put forward by his party, given that he is responsible for so much in London Labour party politics.
We take the same general view on this Bill as we take on the Government's constitutional reforms in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government could have been brave, but they are usually timid. They could have real devolution, but they always stop short. They could have given power away from Whitehall, but they always keep Secretaries of State and Prime Ministers in charge of the bodies that are meant to be devolved.

Mr. Gapes: In his discussions with his colleagues, could the hon. Gentleman find time to suggest to his mathematical colleague, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), that he might wish to calculate the number of repetitive arguments that have been put ad nauseam by the Liberal Democrats at every Committee sitting and in the House?

Mr. Hughes: I seem to remember that the hon. Gentleman came up with some extraordinary views in

Committee which suggested that Stalinism still reigns on some of the Labour Benches. We kept to the agreed timetable in Committee. My hon. Friends and I contributed to most debates, unlike most Labour Back Benchers, who were noticeably silent. Sadly, that is a reflection of the state of the parties: we speak our minds, whereas Labour Members are often not allowed to do so.
The Government had opportunities to make progress. They could have agreed to allow the mayor to be recalled—a point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—if he or she no longer had the confidence of Londoners, but they resisted. They could have allowed London government to take account of national policy, but not to be required to be consistent with it. Why have devolution if the devolved body has to do the same as everyone else? However, the Government resisted that. They could have allowed London government to be free of capping, but they resisted it. They could have allowed the current concessionary fare regime, which is the best of the series of regimes, to be the starting point for concessionary fares in the new London government, but instead we shall start with the old regime, which is less good in terms of those who benefit from the concessions.
Although we welcome the opportunity for road charging to be levied both at the workplace and for road users, the Government resisted other transport proposals that were obviously necessary. They resisted permanent hypothecation, which we debated regularly with the Minister for Transport in London. They resisted the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for a guaranteed annual increase in funding for London transport in line with the retail price index.
Then, in Committee, we had the blow that none of us expected. We imagined that London Regional Transport would be abolished and handed over to Transport for London, but we discovered that it would not be abolished after all. We discovered that the invitation to tender for the new tube system, which was meant to be issued early this spring, had still not been issued, and that the public-private partnership, which the Government say is not driven by empty ideology, is something to which the Government are so wedded that they will continue with it, despite the fact that it appears to be an empty proposition. Nobody is playing that game. My hon. Friends have offered the Government a better, internationally tried and tested, and acceptable alternative—a public interest company to run London underground. Instead, next July we are to have a London government that will not allow the mayor or the assembly to run the key transport system that everybody thought it would run.
We do not support the Conservative amendment, and we shall oppose it. The Conservatives complain about the fairer electoral system that is proposed, because they believe that it will lead to parties having an influence out of proportion to the number of their candidates who have been elected. The fact is that people will be elected in proportion to the votes cast for them. The Tory party has set itself against the right of the London government to introduce road charging, which we think it should have. The Tory answer to the problem of the future of the tube is to privatise it, which my hon. Friends and I have always opposed.


I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who have worked assiduously in Committee for 100 hours, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who has supported us throughout. For Liberal Democrats, this Bill has been a test of whether the Government would deliver regional government for London. We gave them the benefit of the doubt on Second Reading. Sadly. we have been let down, so we shall not be able to support the Bill on Third Reading tonight.

Ms Linda Perham: I welcome the Bill, which will restore democratic accountability to London. I still welcome it, even though we spent until midnight yesterday discussing it, and 100 hours in Committee, not to mention Second Reading. As amended, it is now an immensely detailed document. If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is to be believed, it is the largest ever Bill. It will fundamentally affect the lives of Londoners by setting out how the mayor and assembly will be elected, the accountability of the mayor, which is most important, and the strategies of the mayor.
The capital's transport strategy is of great importance to Londoners, and has rightly generated huge interest. It has taken up a great deal of time and energy on the Floor of the House and in Committee. It was one of the areas that I focused on in my speech on Second Reading on 14 December. I raised issues of concern to the licensed taxi trade, a large number of whose drivers live in my constituency. I was pleased to introduce a new clause in Committee on charging fees for "the knowledge", so that existing drivers do not have to subsidise applicants for licences. The Government have accepted the case, and hope to introduce a measure in the other place.
The Bill deals with the vital area of planning. There is a clear need for a strategic approach to planning in London. If strategic planning was not needed after the abolition of the Greater London council, why did the London Planning Advisory Committee have to be established?
There is also a clear need for a London overview of environmental issues, such as biodiversity, waste management, air quality and noise. A culture strategy is also important. That comes last on the list, but as far as I am concerned last is not least. As a former chair of the leisure committee on the London borough of Redbridge and as a professional librarian, I strongly hold the view that people spend their quality time on leisure and culture—what they choose to do with their time, rather than what they are obliged to do with it. Under that heading come art and tourism, sport, buildings, treasures, antiquities, broadcasting and other media, museums, galleries and libraries.
I am delighted that the London research centre—the former research library—which was wrenched from its place in County hall when the GLC was spitefully abolished, will return under the umbrella of our splendid new GLA to continue to serve Londoners through their mayor and assembly.

Mr. Wilkinson: The Bill has been notable for the excellent relations between hon. Members on the Front Benches. That has enabled us to make progress within the

timetable, and to try to improve the Bill. Candidly, it has come out of its Committee and Report stages hardly any better. It is undoubtedly longer, and I shall judge it by its effect on my constituents.
I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who has been good humoured, but tenacious throughout; our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who was the only non-London member of the Standing Committee; and the Nestor on our Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), to whom we Conservative Achaeans always turn for wise counsel in the difficult task of investing socialist—I must not call it that—new Labour Ilium. The triumvirate—or should I say "tripersonate"?— on the Government Front Bench, the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), have been attentive and courteous, and we appreciate the way in which they have responded to all our questions.
I asked whether the Bill would benefit my constituents. It will provide a voice for London; but will the mayor's voice be the authoritative voice of Londoners, or will he merely articulate his own concerns? We look to the assembly to modify his opinions, and to provide counsel and input to ensure that local interests are secure. We have our doubts, however. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, without borough representation there is a serious likelihood that important local interests will be subordinated to the concerns and preoccupations of the mayoralty, or of London as a whole.
The assembly will be a strange political hermaphrodite. How the two parts will coexist remains to be seen, but I am sure that the directly elected representative for my constituents' borough and the neighbouring borough of Ealing will carry more weight than the more rootless individuals who will have no constituency connection. The jiggery-pokery involved in the imposition of an arbitrary 5 per cent. threshold rather than the arithmetical threshold of about 3.8 per cent. of normal turnout will ensure that probably one representative on the list is not the authentic person who would have been elected under an arithmetical system, and is therefore not the representative in a wholly democratic sense.
As for the qualities desired in the mayor, he will need drive and vision, but, above all, he will need political attributes to be able to take advantage of the wide powers of consultation that the Bill vests in him. I think that we approve of the manner in which the Government have sought to widen the consultation and make it effective, but, if the mayor is to reconcile diverse and potentially conflicting interests involving boroughs, business, race and minorities, industry and the environment, he will need a sense of balance.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilkinson: No, because others wish to speak. Normally, I would give way.
My constituents are apprehensive about planning. The spatial development strategy of the mayoralty will, in essence, take precedence over the unitary development plans of the boroughs, and thus could militate against my constituents' concern to ensure a balance between


developmental and residential needs, and recognition of the paramount importance of maintaining the environment and the quality of life in London.
In that context, people will look to the authority to bring about a genuine improvement in London's transport system. They are doubtful whether road user charges could ever work: they are aware that the British motorist already pays the highest taxes in Europe, and that these are just additional taxes. I consider it diabolical that employers should have to pay taxes for the people who come to work on their premises. As for promoting the Bill and taking it to its final stage without meeting the main objective that the Labour party set itself in London-—the creation of a public—private partnership—that is a deficiency of the worst order, of which I am sure the electorate will prove highly critical in the elections next spring for the mayor and members of the assembly.
This will not be a truly democratic institution of the kind to which we are used, particularly because there is no mechanism to hold the mayor to account, and to get rid of him if necessary. We have reservations about the system of election and about the powers and undue influence of the Secretary of State. That said, we are determined that the assembly and the authority, in the person of the mayor who heads it, will be Conservative controlled next spring. That is our objective. We are determined to make the system work. Our constituents may have reservations now, but, with Conservative control, it could potentially do a very good job.

Mr. McNulty: I say to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that Solihull was not the only non-London representation on the Committee. The Vale of Glamorgan was there, too, and that should be recognised.
It is not worth rising to the flatulent twaddle of the Liberal Democrats, save to say that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) entirely forgot the one lasting and only significant impression that they made on the Bill. Hon. Members who were on the Committee may remember that, on one occasion, there was a "which" where the "h" had been left off. The Liberal Democrat train spotters noticed it and put the "h" back in. That—I mean it with all sincerity—is the only significant, substantive change that the Liberal Democrats made to the entire Bill.
Nothing in the reasoned amendment—we have to say "reasoned"; I do not know why—that has been tabled by the Conservative party would find any support among Labour Members. It is quite a disappointment, given that we spent so much time lovingly together upstairs in Committee Room 12.
The first point in the reasoned amendment is fine: we would anticipate that from Conservatives. They are against democracy, so they do not want a directly elected chamber of any significance in terms of the assembly. If they were honest, they would admit that they would rather have some blokes-in-suits way of securing the mayoralty, perhaps an hereditary principle or something like that. Nothing else that they suggest in the reasoned amendment is worth supporting. It should simply be dismissed out of hand.
The real reason why I wanted to speak was to say that there were three people in the Committee who did substantive work and should be congratulated by the entire House, not just by Labour Members. As a preface, I say that the Conservatives are to be congratulated on the way in which they dealt with matters of substance in Committee. They had their position. It was bonkers and entirely wrong on most occasions, but they put it in a reasoned and fair way. Their position was full of integrity, rather than the on-going teenage "Call My Bluff' which we had ad nauseam from the three Liberal Democrats, lovingly referred to as Moe, Larry and Curly, the Three Stooges.
The three who made significant contributions are, of course, the Front-Bench team. It is not invidious to point out that, although the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London played a significant role, the real architect of the piece is my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction. He is to be hugely congratulated on his work, which is why that is enough from me; I want to hear from him.

Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). He spoke on the Committee as much as any Labour Back Bencher. I join him in his praise for the Minister for London and Construction and his colleagues. It has been a long road. It has been a pleasure to follow that road in the steps of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway).
I go back briefly to the governance of London debate in mid-June 1997. At that stage, the Government did not seem to be clear where they were going. I recall quoting a question to Alec Douglas-Home during the 1964 general election about VAT, to which he replied, "A lot of clever chaps are thinking about it at this moment."
After the debate, the Minister confirmed to me that a lot of clever chaps were beginning to flesh out what the Labour party thought about the governance of London in preparation for the Bill. I am not totally confident that the Government know even now where they are going.
We have come to Third Reading. Like the hon. Member for Harrow, East, I greatly enjoyed the Committee stage. I am sorry that I have not been present more often during Report. Much work has been done by those clever men, hut, as with devolution on the eve of the first elections and as with the House of Lords Bill in the Committee stage—we have not even been allowed to debate the White Paper on the future of the House of Lords—ultimately, we do not have a clear idea that the Government know their direction. The best evidence for that is the gallimaufry and mishmash of new clauses and new schedules with which we have been festooned during the debate.
The Government have relied on the election and the referendum result, which they claim endorsed their proposals. As their political opponent, I am content that they should remain lulled into false security, although, as I re-entered the Chamber a little before 6 o'clock this evening, I felt the susurrus of flapping—not yet the flapping of London Labour Members concerned about their seats, but certainly the flapping of chickens coming home to roost.
To state the position in London terms, I sadly have a sense of the Third Reading of this Titanic of a Bill steaming steadily into the darkness; its engine room, which is the London underground, as invisible as the underground is to the average London pedestrian. The Minister for Transport in London has been temporarily lost overboard, but she is obliged to believe that all is well with the Government's plans for the London underground. As a traveller on the underground, I place more confidence in the permanent way than the third way. I fear that, as time passes, the number of Londoners who believe that all is well with the underground under Labour is beginning to recede. That is how support for a Government haemorrhages. I do not say that with pleasure, for I am a Londoner, but it increases the sense of drama and the feeling that the Government will first visibly retreat in the heart of our capital.

Mr. Randall: Even if I had the skills of Liberal Democrat Members, unfortunately time does not allow me to indulge in the verbal incontinence that we have heard them demonstrate throughout the Committee proceedings on the Bill. Those hon. Members who were not present in Committee did at least witness a small example of that a few moments ago.
The people of Uxbridge were, at best, lukewarm when they voted in the referendum for London government without knowing the meat on the bones of that concept. Now that there is a little more meat, they will be disappointed to find out exactly what they voted for. However, it would be churlish of me not to say that the Bill contains some good proposals, although it is not the Conservative model, and I fear that it will not fulfil the aspirations that many Londoners have for it. My particular worry is that the outer London suburbs, such as the area that I represent, will pay for the inner boroughs and will end up being neglected by the mayor and assembly.
I accept that, although we shall shortly vote for the reasoned amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the mathematics will be against us once again. I am pleased at least to have taken part in this undoubtedly historic moment in London's history. I hope that my doubts will not be realised, because I take pride in this great city of ours. However, I fear that it will take a Conservative mayor and assembly to make sure that the Bill works for the people.

Mr. Raynsford: The reasoned amendment serves only to highlight the confusion and muddle that characterise the Conservative party's approach to the governance of our capital.
Fifteen years ago, the Conservative party introduced legislation to abolish democratic and strategic government in London, without consultation, without a referendum and without so much as a by-your-leave. They left London for 13 years without a democratic, citywide authority. Two years ago, the Conservatives went into an election arguing that there was no need for any strategic authority for the capital. Following their comprehensive rejection by the people of London, they were forced to think again. Today, we see the result of that extended process of policy reappraisal.
While the rest of London looks forward to the potential and possibilities that the Greater London Authority will bring, the Conservative party has, at long last and after

much consideration, got around to a grudging acceptance of the need for a representative body for London, although it still proposes to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill that will set up the new authority.
Of course, the people of London have not chosen to wait for the Conservative party's conclusions. While it has been deliberating, the Government have published a Green Paper and a White Paper and held a referendum in which our policy proposals were overwhelmingly endorsed by majorities in every one of the 32 London boroughs and the City of London. It is those proposals that the Bill will implement.
We intend that there should be a mayor and assembly for London: a mayor to offer strategic leadership across the capital and an assembly to ensure proper scrutiny and accountability. The mayor will be elected with a clear mandate from the people of London—which the supplementary vote may be more capable of delivering than first past the post. The assembly will not—as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) suggested—be a hung council. Conservative Members seem not yet to have recognised that the mayor and not the assembly will be the executive, and that the mayor will have a clear mandate.
The assembly will be elected by the proportional, additional member system, with a mixture of constituency and list members—reflecting the diverse views of London, and ensuring that the assembly is best placed to perform its role as a body charged not with executive responsibilities, but with questioning, scrutinising and investigating on behalf of the capital's electorate.
The electoral systems have been designed for effective government in London, were clearly stated in our White Paper and were overwhelmingly endorsed in the referendum. Conservative Members' refusal to accept those facts borders on the incredible.
I shall now deal with road user charging, which was also mentioned in the Opposition's reasoned amendment. In doing so, I should briefly provide some background to our proposals.
When Conservative Members left power, they left behind a city suffering from traffic congestion and air pollution—with all the costs to health and the economy that those entail, but without any framework or plan for dealing with them. The position was not sustainable. However—perhaps with the exception of Conservative Members—there has been broad endorsement of our approach, in our integrated transport strategy, to tackling those problems.
We developed our proposals on road user charging and workplace parking charging with the support of a wide range of organisations from the business community—such as London First—and from the wider community, including the Association of London Government. Contrary to the claims of Conservative Members, our proposed measures are not anti-car, but represent a balanced package aimed at reducing congestion and generating investment.
Moreover, the proposals are not—as Conservative Members suggested—being imposed by the Government. The mayor and the London boroughs will have the power to introduce such charges if they choose to do so. That is a proper democratic framework. We have also guaranteed that, for 10 years, every penny so raised will be devoted to investment in transport.


Again, therefore, the Opposition's reasoned amendment reflects nothing more than a lack of understanding of the challenges facing London, and the disengagement of the Conservative party from London's new political agenda—which has been symbolised by yet another spectacular U-turn, as Conservative Members try to forget the congestion charging proposals that they themselves made in a Green Paper only three years ago, when they were in power. Conservative Members have given up all principle and consistency and are opportunistically seizing any issue that they think might bring them a little cheap short-term popularity.
When the Government came to power, we inherited a clapped-out underground system, suffering from years of neglect and underinvestment and with no satisfactory arrangements for future investment. It is therefore astonishing to have to listen to carping criticisms from Conservative Members when they are faced with the new and creative approach that we have adopted to bringing much-needed investment back into the underground system. Their carping simply demonstrates the total bankruptcy of their views, their failure to recognise London's new mood, and the new way forward offered by the Government.
I criticise Conservative Members, but I also criticise Liberal Democrat Members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) rightly stressed in his intervention, while the Government are engaged in restoring a vibrant new democratic structure of government for London, the Liberal Democrats are capable only of narrow-minded carping. We have heard a series of whinges from them—such as their belief that the mayor will be too powerful. They simply cannot stomach the idea of an effective mayor who will be able to deliver for the people of London.
The Liberal Democrats claimed that there was no provision for health, but they were wrong. The Bill contains clear provisions allowing the mayor to have full regard to the health of Londoners, and to promote initiatives to improve the health of Londoners.
For decades and generations, the Liberal Democrats have campaigned on electoral reform, but—would you believe it? —when we present them with a proportional electoral system for London, do they say, "Yes, we welcome it"? No, they carp, whinge and criticise. It is typical that they should fail to welcome the proposal.
The fact that the Liberal Democrats will abstain in the vote on Third Reading—sitting on their hands while we are creating a new structure of government for London—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that he would not be supporting either the Conservatives' reasoned amendment or Third Reading, and that is abstention. It is a failure to sit on either side of the fence—which is typical of a party of protest, not of a serious party of government.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The record will show that the Minister is wrong. I said that we would vote against the reasoned amendment for the reasons that I set out in my speech.

Mr. Raynsford: The Liberal Democrats will be voting against the Conservatives' reasoned amendment, but they

will not be supporting the Third Reading of the Bill. What a classic comment on their total disengagement from the process of government. They are irrelevant to the future of London.
In contrast with the lame and limp contributions of the Liberal Democrats, we have heard many telling contributions this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) rightly highlighted the historic nature of what we are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) rejoiced in the restoration of democratic electoral systems in London and a democratic citywide authority. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) demonstrated once again his characteristically courteous approach by thanking us for the courtesy that we extended in Committee; I greatly appreciate that. He made some important points on behalf of his constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) for his kind words. He added his characteristically vibrant approach to the debate and highlighted again the ineffectiveness of the Liberal Democrats.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) entertained us with his characteristic humour and erudition throughout the Committee. I thank him for his contribution this evening, although I disagree with his conclusion about where we are going and the prospects for the new London government. He may be in for a surprise as the people of London welcome the creative new structure of government with an elected mayor, which the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), sitting next to him, has advocated in the past. The new structure can offer new hope, new prospects and a better system of government to galvanise our city. I hope that, when it succeeds, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that he was present and party to an historic reform of government in London.
In a characteristically kind way, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) recognised the good things in the Bill, although he criticised it. He also always saw the brighter things of life in Committee, including the odd bird flying past the window, which caught his attention as an avid bird watcher.
The Bill carries forward our manifesto promise to the people of London, confirmed a year ago this week in the referendum, to create a new authority, providing the right mix of leadership and accountability, with an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. The Bill will ensure that Londoners once more have a democratic say on vital issues such as transport, the environment and economic development. It provides a framework for new investment in the underground system and for the first time will give the people of this city proper democratic oversight of the running of their police service.
The Bill will comprehensively reform the way in which our capital is governed. That inevitably requires complex and lengthy legislation. I am particularly grateful for the diligence and fortitude of all the hon. Members who have contributed to the detailed scrutiny of the Bill in Committee and on Report. I am grateful for the support and help of all my hon. Friends, but I also thank the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members who have shown enormous diligence in following the Bill through its lengthy proceedings. The Standing Committee sat for more than 100 hours and considered a huge number of amendments—1,400 of them—addressing every aspect of the Bill. Contrary to some suggestions, the majority of the


amendments—around nine out of 10—were from the Opposition parties, who managed to table more amendments to this Bill than to any other in recent memory.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has assiduously tried to count the number of clauses. He overlooked the amendments that deleted redundant clauses. Our estimate is that there will be 330 clauses, not 338, but he was right about there being 27 schedules.
I am grateful for the Committee's diligent scrutiny. That, together with the timetabling of progress through all stages, including Report, has ensured that every aspect of the Bill has been tested and examined in the most rigorous detail, enabling the House to make its legislative intent very clear. I am sure that that will be noted when the Bill is examined in the other place.
The Bill will leave the House in good shape, with its underlying principles endorsed. It is a good and historic Bill. Future generations will look back on it as an important milestone in the development of democratic government in London. We are offering a new style of governance for London with a directly elected mayor as part of our programme to modernise local government systems. One year to this day—

It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [30 April]: —

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 265.

Division No. 167]
[10 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Fraser, Christopher


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Garnier, Edward


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gibb, Nick


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baldry, Tony
Gray, James


Beggs, Roy
Green, Damian


Bercow, John
Greenway, John


Boswell, Tim
Grieve, Dominic


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hague, Rt Hon William


Brady, Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brazier, Julian
Hammond, Philip


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heald, Oliver


Browning, Mrs Angela
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Horam, John


Burns, Simon
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Butterfill, John
Hunter, Andrew


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


(Chipping Barnet)
Jenkin, Bernard


Chope, Christopher
Key, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


(Rushcliffe)
Lansley, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward


Collins, Tim
Lidington, David


Cran, James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Loughton, Tim


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


& Howden)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Duncan Smith, Iain
Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Evans, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Fallon, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Flight, Howard
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
May, Mrs Theresa


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Nicholls, Patrick





Ottaway, Richard
Townend, John


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paterson, Owen
Viggers, Peter


Randall, John
Walter, Robert


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whittingdale, John


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wilkinson, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wilshire, David


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Soames, Nicholas
Woodward, Shaun


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Swayne, Desmond
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Syms, Robert



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Stephen Day and


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Sir David Madel.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cranston, Ross


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Crausby, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Allen, Graham
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dalyell, Tam


Ashton, Joe
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Atkins, Charlotte
Darvill, Keith


Austin, John
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Barnes, Harry
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beard, Nigel
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dawson, Hilton


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bennett, Andrew F
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Berry, Roger
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Best, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Drown, Ms Julia


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Boateng, Paul
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ennis, Jeff


Brake, Tom
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Breed, Colin
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Burgon, Colin
Follett, Barbara


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Gardiner, Barry


Caplin, Ivor
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Casale, Roger
Gerrard, Neil


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chaytor, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Dr Lynda
Goggins, Paul


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coaker, Vernon
Grogan, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cohen, Harry
Hall Patrick (Bedford)


Colman, Tony
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cousins, Jim
Healey, John






Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
(Makerfield)


Hepburn, Stephen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Heppell, John
McDonnell, John


Hesford, Stephen
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McNulty, Tony


Hoey, Kate
MacShane, Denis


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hope, Phil
McWalter, Tony


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mallabar, Judy


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hurst, Alan
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hutton, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Illsley, Eric
Meale, Alan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Merron, Gillian


Jamieson, David
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Jenkins, Brian
Miller, Andrew


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mitchell, Austin


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Moffatt, Laura


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Moran, Ms Margaret 


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Morley, Elliot


Jones, Ms Jenny
Mountford, Kali


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Olner, Bill


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pearson, Ian


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Perham, Ms Linda


Kemp, Fraser
Pickthall, Colin


Khabra, Piara S
Pike, Peter L


Kilfoyle, Peter
Plaskitt, James


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pollard, Kerry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pond, Chris


Kingharn, Ms Tess
Pope, Greg


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pound, Stephen


Laxton, Bob
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Levitt, Tom
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Purchase, Ken


Linton, Martin
Quin, Rt Hon Joyce


Livingstone, Ken
Rammell, Bill


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rapson, Syd


Lock, David
Raynsford, Nick


Love, Andrew
Roberston, Rt Hon George


McAvoy, Thomas
(Hamilton, S)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try Nw)





Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
(Dewsbury)


Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Roy, Frank
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ruddock, Joan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Timms, Stephen


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tipping, Paddy


Ryan, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Sanders, Adrian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Savidge, Malcolm
Trickett, Jon


Sawford, Phil
Tumer, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sheerman, Barry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Vis, Dr Rudi


Singh, Marsha
Walley, Ms Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Watts, David


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
White, Brian


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Snape, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Soley, Clive
Wills, Michael


Southworth, Ms Helen
Winnick, David


Spellar, John
Wise, Audrey


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wood, Mike


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wray, James


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Anthony D (Dt Yarmouth)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin



Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Tellers for the Noes:


Stringer, Graham
Jane Kennedy and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Keith Hill.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,
That Mr. Mike Hancock be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Mr. Mark Oaten be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Allen.]

Orders of the Day — Medical School (North Staffordshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

Ms Joan Walley: I am most grateful for this opportunity to make the case in the House for an undergraduate medical school at Keele university, which will be for the benefit of people in north Staffordshire and further afield. The proposal is supported by many hon. Members, some of whom are here this evening.
We want Keele university to be able to offer places to 50 undergraduate medical students by 2000. Those places will be based in north Staffordshire, and placements will be provided in areas as far afield as Shropshire, the rest of Staffordshire, Burton and Crewe. It is essential to this bid that there is a joint proposal, involving the universities of Keele and of Manchester. This is a collaborative venture.
During Prime Minister's questions today, we heard a lot about doctors' hours and the working time directive. However, the bottom line for us is that we do not have enough doctors, because the previous Government did not give them to us. Therefore, we recognise that we must recruit and train more medical staff in north Staffordshire, where the shortage is already apparent. It is worth noting that the health needs of our area are widely acknowledged to be more pressing than those of the rest of the west midlands and, indeed, of the country as a whole.
I pay tribute to the vision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who has put forward proposals in response to the medical work force standing advisory committee, which has stated that an extra 1,000 medical students should be recruited every year by the year 2005. I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend will visit north Staffordshire next week, so there will be an opportunity to discuss our proposals with him at first hand. However, his vision has been equalled by that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, through the comprehensive spending review, has provided the additional money for the extra recruitment.

Mrs. Llin Golding: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the strengths of the Keele bid for the additional places is that work on it has been going on for many years? There has been striking co-operation with the health authorities in Manchester and Shropshire over a long period. Everything is now in place to make it possible to expand the number of available places beyond 50. Is not that one of the main reasons behind the strength of this proposal?

Ms Walley: I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend, who has campaigned longer than most for this medical school. In a moment, I shall explain how we have been trying to establish a medical school at Keele university since 1965.
The vision that we share is not only for undergraduate places that at present do not exist in north Staffordshire. Our vision is for the expansion of facilities dedicated to medical education. For the first time since 1965, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, we have a real opportunity to establish a medical school in the area.
That has been the dream of many people—including the medical director at the North Staffordshire hospital trust, Keith Prowse—since the 1960s.
If we look out from Westminster across the river, we can see Guys and St. Thomas's medical school. We want exactly the same facility for Shropshire, Staffordshire and Cheshire. We want a postgraduate school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) said, the bid is led by Keele university, and it has widespread support, not least from the North Staffordshire hospital NHS trust and other trusts in the area. It is supported by local Members of Parliament. There is also support, and proven expertise, from Manchester and Liverpool universities.
The bid also has the support of chief executives from Burton hospitals NHS trust, East Cheshire NHS trust, Mid Cheshire hospitals NHS trust, Mid Staffordshire general hospitals NHS trust, the Princess Royal hospital NHS trust, the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic and district hospital NHS trust, the Royal Shrewsbury hospitals NHS trust, and a range of local medical committees and primary care groups.
That wide geographical support is backed by a new spirit of partnership that is growing as a result of the area's recently created and innovative health action zone. Excellent working partnerships across the area involve schools and health partnerships. We want to build on all that. Although we are in the west midlands region, the teaching hospital for which we are bidding would look towards Manchester. We have discussed that point with colleagues in the region and see no problem arising.
No one disputes the difficulties of local recruitment of medical staff. We want to create an opportunity out of the shortage. We want permanent training places. We want 50 in the first instance, and we want to build on that figure. We want local youngsters to aim high and to take up a medical career. We also want to build a local centre of excellence to which students may come from elsewhere. They will come from outside the area to train with us and, having trained, they will stay on to practise in areas that are experiencing some of the greatest difficulties in recruiting medical staff—doctors, consultants and others.
There is a culture of learning in our area. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and I attended a presentation of the beacon awards at which Stoke-on-Trent college was presented with a certificate of excellence. There is a culture of aiming high so that we may address the traditional imbalance of underachievement.
The spin-offs of a graduate medical centre would be enormous. There would be extra research money and benefits to patients—our constituents. It would almost certainly bring extra employment over a wide area, and it would bring extra ancillary staff. It would give us an opportunity to build a centre of excellence to deal with the particular medical problems that we face. I hope that I have argued convincingly for the excellence of the bid, which will shortly be considered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health.
Let me turn now to the extent of ill health in the area. On key indicators, north Staffordshire performs consistently worse than the west midlands region and the United Kingdom as a whole. This is the right time to redress the imbalance, and to train and recruit personnel in an area in which they are badly needed.


The figures speak for themselves. Keith Prowse, the medical director of North Staffordshire hospital NHS trust, has highlighted the seriousness of our recruitment problem. In north Staffordshire alone, there are 10 full-time general practitioner vacancies. Four further practices have hard-to-fill vacancies that have not even been advertised. Local GP training schemes have had five more vacant slots in 10 practices since last August. On behalf of all my hon. Friends present in the Chamber tonight, I ask the Minister to look favourably on our proposal for a world-class teaching hospital, based at Keele university and serving the wider region that we represent.

Charlotte Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for allowing me to participate in this important debate.
Among the Government's top priorities are improving health outcomes and addressing health inequalities. The Labour Government were the first to appoint a Minister for Public Health to set out proposals to improve the health of the population as a whole, especially the worse-off. North Staffordshire wants to follow that example. As my hon. Friend says, we have significantly worse health outcomes than either the west midlands or the whole of England and Wales. On the positive side, that means that we can achieve far greater health improvements than other parts of the country, so we are faced not only with a tremendous opportunity, but with a tremendous challenge.
It is in part owing to my hon. Friend's persistence that we have achieved a health action zone, which affords us exciting opportunities. It will help to break down the cycle of unhealthy life styles, poor health outcomes and low health aspirations that has bedevilled north Staffordshire for too long. It creates exciting possibilities: healthy living centres, schemes to promote community safety and tackle teenage pregnancy and drug abuse, and opportunities to create partnerships across education, the voluntary sector, the business community, social services and local people. However, we in north Staffordshire lack the inspiration, the learning culture and the modern expertise that comes from having a local medical school.
Located between Birmingham and Manchester, north Staffordshire fails to attract and retain the high-quality health care professionals we need. It is a well-established fact that the majority of medical students will ultimately practise in the locality in which they have trained; therefore, despite the delights of the Staffordshire peak district, our area has become denuded of local GPs and hospital doctors. Today, I spoke to a local GP in Leek, Dr. Shiers, who told me of the vulnerability of market towns such as Leek. Four to five years ago, when general practice was not a popular option for newly qualified doctors, there were only two or three applicants for local vacant posts.
That does nothing to raise standards of primary health care or to encourage greater collaboration between primary and secondary care. A university medical school at Keele would create positive ripples throughout the whole service, not only in hospitals. Medical students

need to experience general practice early in their training if we are to create the proper balance between primary and secondary care—an objective to which I know the Government are committed. The influx of students would have a positive impact on general practice by stimulating new ideas, boosting in-service training and encouraging better communication between local doctors.
What I find especially attractive about the Keele proposal is that it is based on partnership—building on the expertise of Manchester university while exploiting the underuse by students of north Staffordshire hospitals and community placements. It would benefit from the assured quality of the established and well-tested Manchester curriculum, and make better and more rational use of national health service training facilities. The proposal offers a cost-effective way of training more doctors and meeting the needs of an area that is crying out for greater investment in improving health care.

Mrs. Llin Golding: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Does the hon. Lady have the permission of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and that of the Minister? I see that she does.

Mrs. Golding: I wish briefly to sum up, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Essentially, the case for a new medical school at Keele rests on the following factors: the existence of a substantial natural catchment population for major trauma, tertiary and specialist services of about 1.7 million people; the presence of well-developed primary and community services; the substantial range of health and health-related teaching and research activity already existing within the area; the commitment and support of the relevant health authorities and trusts; links with other medical schools, which are extremely strong; and Keele's traditions and strengths, which make it a particularly suitable home for a 21st century medical school.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on obtaining the debate and on providing the opportunity to discuss the provision of additional medical student places in the United Kingdom. I acknowledge the interest of my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and thank them for their contributions to the debate. Other hon. Members have been in their places this evening to show, I am sure, support for the bid that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North.
I hope that my hon. Friends will understand that, at this stage in the bidding process, I cannot debate the merits of any individual sites for the expansion of medical education. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is looking forward to his visit to the area concerned.
It might be helpful if I set out the background to the plan to increase medical school intake. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, the planned


increase was originally a recommendation in the third report of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee. It reflected its detailed consideration of the overall long-term need for doctors in this country, taking into account the projected demand for health services, the projected numerical losses from the profession as a result of retirement and other factors. The House will note that the committee's remit was with the overall numbers of doctors needed. It was not concerned with the specialties that the new doctors might join after completing their undergraduate training.
The Government are proud that, following the comprehensive spending review, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was, last July, able to tell the House that the intake of students to medical schools in the United Kingdom will increase by about 1,000 places per annum—by 20 per cent.—to about 6,000. This will be the biggest increase in medical education in this country in a generation. Our intention is to ensure that the national health service will have the doctors that it needs in the first part of the new century.
Statutory responsibility for the allocation of the additional student places to individual universities rests with the appropriate funding council. In England, a joint implementation group, led by the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the permanent secretary of my Department, is working together to allocate places and to make recommendations to the HEFCE.
Some 158 extra places have already been allocated to existing medical schools in England for the autumn 1999 intake, and work is now well advanced to allocate more than 800 further places to English universities.
We should be clear why the issue of medical education is so very important. The White Paper "The new NHS" introduced a new concept of clinical governance, which embraces a range of quality assurance processes, such as clinical audit, and acknowledges the importance of continuing professional development and lifelong learning to the delivery of quality patient care in the NHS. The expectations placed upon tomorrow's doctors will be demanding, and their preparation to meet them will begin as soon as they enter medical school.
In increasing medical student places, we want to set an agenda to drive up the standards of medical education as a whole so as to deliver real long-term benefits to the NHS, following curriculums consistent with the General Medical Council's report entitled "Tomorrow's Doctors", and working towards the principles set out in "The new NHS". That is why we have asked the joint implementation group to observe specific objectives in judging proposals from universities for the allocation of the further places in England. Those objectives reflect the Government's agenda both for the NHS and for a healthier nation.
The joint implementation group's objectives are, first, to develop new doctors who are equipped to meet the challenge of the changing health and health care needs of patients and populations into the first half of the 21st century. In short, the new doctors must have the right medical and technological skills, and must be adept at dealing with the changing health needs of a new century.
The second objective is to develop new doctors who are able to practise to a very high standard, through being able to appraise and use evidence, to become lifelong

learners, to maintain professional standards and be effective team members and leaders. In the new century, as now, the public will want to know that the doctors whom they consult will be of the best, and that the service that they deliver will be characterised by excellence.
The pace at which new treatments and clinical techniques are developed means that a doctor's education and professional development cannot end with the completion of specialist or vocational training. This pace of change can only accelerate in the decades ahead. Whatever specialty doctors follow in their careers, they have a duty to maintain and continue to develop their clinical practice throughout their careers. They will continue to learn, so that they remain skilled in, and will apply, the latest knowledge in their work. The country will also rightly expect them to work to the highest professional standards, and to work together within the profession and across professional boundaries.
The third objective of the joint implementation group is to develop new doctors who are committed to, and skilled in, promoting health, preventing ill health, diagnosing and treating injury and disease, and caring for people with long-term illness and disability. More than ever before, the practice of medicine is about the promotion of health and the prevention of illness and injury, as well as the treatment of injury and disease, and long-term care. That is essential to our strategy for a healthier nation.
The fourth objective is to develop new doctors who understand the value of partnership and communication with their patients, their colleagues, and members of other professional groups. The best doctors have always worked with their patients and colleagues to ensure the very best outcomes for patients, but the skills to work together in partnership with patients and their families must be a part of the medical curriculum from the beginning.
The group's fifth objective is to provide a high-quality educational environment in which evaluation and research are fostered and which gives value for money. Medicine is not taught by rote. A high-quality research environment in a university is a major driver to the development of inquiring and innovative doctors who will learn by approaching medical problems.
The national need for trained doctors who are able to apply rapidly expanding knowledge in the biological and social sciences will remain paramount. To give just one key example, advances in human genetics will bring a revolution to health care in the next century, and the Government recognise the need to strengthen medical education in genetics at all stages of the continuum of training to ensure that tests are used and interpreted appropriately and efficiently. In so rapidly changing a field, a strong research base will be needed to underpin the development of students and their teachers alike.
As the group considers bids, it seeks to demonstrate an active commitment to the admission of students from a broad range of social and ethnic backgrounds, to reflect the patterns of populations served by the NHS. In increasing the supply of doctors, the joint implementation group wants to ensure that unnecessary and often hidden barriers to a broader mix of gifted medical students are avoided.
There are already examples of outreach, where universities and others have worked with local schools, often in areas where there has been little tradition of


higher education. They have encouraged young people who might never have considered a medical career to work from an early stage of their secondary school careers towards entry to medical school. Such approaches are not simply a matter of promoting equal opportunities, critical though that is. They also help to ensure that new doctors understand, and can best work with, the communities that they serve.
Finally, the group will ensure that the distribution and patterns of training of students effectively increase the home supply of doctors, and meet the needs of the populations served by the NHS, wherever the doctors may be trained and work. It will seek to enhance quality and value for money through collaboration between universities and partnership with the NHS, consistent with the principle of different groups working together.
Using those objectives as a benchmark, the joint implementation group will be well placed to judge which universities can best and most cost effectively deliver to this agenda.
All universities were invited in the new year to submit proposals for the allocation of places. I am delighted that about 20 proposals were submitted to the joint implementation group. These include a number of proposals for collaborations between new and existing medical schools, such as the planned co-operation between the university of Manchester and the university of Keele, to set up medical education facilities on new sites drawing on the curriculums, resources and expertise of the established medical schools. The joint implementation group is now considering all the proposals, and an announcement can be expected reasonably soon.
It would be quite wrong for me to debate the merits of any of the proposals in this place when they are still being considered. It is clear that the different proposals will be judged on their different qualities. Not least among those will be the likely impact on local health services of establishing new sites for medical education or of increasing the size of existing sites.
Equally, the joint implementation group will consider the quality of the medical education on offer, and that will include the capacity of the local health services to provide a broad range of suitable clinical placements in primary and secondary care settings which are easily accessible from the university. Also, and fundamentally, the group must judge how the allocation of medical school places will affect the overriding reason for the increase—the development of the right number of appropriately skilled doctors to deliver medical care in the first part of the new century, in the most cost-effective way, for the country as a whole.
My hon. Friends may be assured that Keele university's proposal to set up a joint medical school with Manchester university, which I understand that they see as a possible first step towards the establishment of a free-standing medical school, will be considered in detail alongside those of other universities and in accordance with the objectives that I have described.
Hon. Members may be assured of the Government's wish to ensure that the long-term supply of doctors best meets the needs of the country as a whole, wherever the places are situated, and that the underlying principles followed will ensure a quality, cost-effective education—not only for the students filling the additional places now being created, but for all medical students at all universities, consistent with the curricular requirements of "Tomorrow's Doctors" and the broader vision set out in the White Paper "The new NHS".

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.